.,/
TEEA'ITORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
ArrsrrxN.TExAn 78111
November 27. 197.3
The Honorable Fred Toler, Opinion No. H- 159
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Law Re: Construction of Senate Bill
Enforcement Officer Standards 633, 63rd Legislature, with
and Education reference to “educational
503 E. Sam Houston Building incentive pay” for police
Austin, Texas 78701 officers
Dear Mr. Toler:
You have requested our opinion concerning educational incentive
pay authorized for police officers by Article 1269m, Vernon’s Texas
Civil Statutes, as amended by Senate Bill 633. 63rd Legislature (Acts
1973, ch. 140, p. 300).
Article 1269m regulates firemen’s and policemen’s civil service
in cities over 10,000. Section ,8 of the statute concerns classification “of
firemen and policemen” and, prior to the amendment, provided:
“No classifi&on now in,existence,, or that may
be hereafter created-in such cities, shall ever be filled
except by examjnati,on held in, accordance with the pro-
visions of this law. All persons in each classification
shaH be, paid,the same salary and in addition thereto
be paid any longevity or seniority pay that he may be
entitled to. ”
This was amended by Senate Bill 633 so as to include “educational
incentive pay” as an addition to the base salary for each classification.
As a .result of the amendment, 6 8 of particle 1269m, now provides: “All
persons in each classification shall be .paid the same salary and in addition
thereto be paid any longevity or seniority or educational incentive nay that
he may be entitled to . . . . ” (Emphasis added)
p. 735
The Honorable Fred Toler, page 2 (H-159)
The Senate Bill also added to $8 a paragraph reading:
“Said City Council or legislativ,e body may
authorize Educational incentive pay in addition to
regular pay for policemen and firemen within each
classification, who have successfully completed
courses in an accredited college or university,
provided that such ‘courses are applicable toward
a degree in law enforcement-police science and
include the core curriculum in law enforcement
or are applicable toward a degree in fire science.
An accredited college or university, as that term
is used herein, shall mean any college or univer-
sity accredited by the nationally recognized accre-
diting agency and the state board wherein said.
college or university is located and approved or
certified by the Texas Commission on’Law Enforce-
ment Officer Standards and Education as teaching
the core curriculum or its equivalent or, in the
case of fire science degree courses, approved or
certified by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection,
Personnel Standards and Education. Core Curriculum
in la* enforcement, as used herein, shall mean those
courses in Jaw enforcement education as approved by
the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University
System and the TexasCommission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and~,Education. ”
Literally, the ,amended statute, to entitle ,a law enforcement officer
to incentive pay, requires:
1. The completion of “courses” in an accredited
college or university.
2. The courses must be applicable toward a degree
in law enforce’ment-police science.
p. 736
,
The Honorable Fred Toler, page 3 (H-159)
3. The courses must include the “core curriculum
in law enforcement. ”
An “accredited college” is defined as is the term “core curriculum
in law enforcement, ” the latter being “those courses in law enforcement
education as approved by the Coordinating Board . . . and the Texas
Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. ”
(emphasis added)
Your first question, addressed to the pay of law enforcement officers,
is as follows:
“The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education issued certificates to
officers who have attained certain levels of training
and/or education in academies or colleges approved
by the Commission. Both the Intermediate and Advanced
certificates issued by the Commission may be based on
training or education, or a combination of the two. Can
cities under Article 1269m use these certificates as a
criterion for paying educational incentive pay if:
(1) The certificate is based on education;
(2) The certificate is based on a combination
of education and training; or
(3) The certificate is based solely on training? ”
We believe that the Legislature has clearly expressed an intent-that
educational incentive payments be limited to policemen who have taken
certain specific training. The authoritydacity or other legislative body
to award such incentive pay will, in our opinion, depend.upon the course of
training taken, not on the certificate that may have been earned. The certi-
ficate, at most, is evidence of the completion of the training it represents,
and is not by itself sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for “educa-
tional incentive pay. ”
p. 737
The Honorable Fred Toler, page 4 (H-159)
Your second question asks:
“Texas has a core curriculum in law enforce-
ment which consists of seven law enforcement courses
(21 semester credit hours), and the general education
or liberal arts sequence which is a part of any college
degree, including the law enforcement degree. Can
cities use the college credits which are common to any
degree as a criterion for awarding educational incentive
pay if:
(1) These general education courses are taught
in a college or university which does not have
a law enforcement degree program; or
(2) If the officer has not completed any of the
Core Curriculum in law enforcement? ”
The legislative ,use of the term “core curriculum” refers to basic
law enforcement courses which have the approval of the Coordinating Board
and the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education.
Thus, when the Legislature defined “accredited college or university” as
one which is certified by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer
Standards and Education as teaching the “core curriculum or its equivalent, ”
it excluded colleges or universities which do not have law enforcement pro-
grams and~which are not so certified. Obviously, if an officer has taken
general education courses in an uncertified, university that does not have a
law enforcement program and the core curriculum courses elsewhere, he
would be’l~eligible for educational incentive payments based on the latter
courses, but those taken at the uncertified university would not entitle him
to ,such benefits i
The second’ portion of your question concerns officers who have not
completed any of the core curriculum in law enforcement. We are of the
opinion that such officers would not be eligible for educational incentive
payments.
p. 738
.
i !
The Honorable Fred Toler, page 5 (H-159)
Your third question is:
“In the case of longevity pay, the municipality
is not limited to the minimum, but may in fact, exceed
the minimum pay as set forth in the separate longevity
act. Is it permissable for the municipality to supple-
ment the educational incentive pay and provide additional
incentive pay for training courses completed in a police
academy, which is certified by the Texas Commission
on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education?”
As we understand your question, you wish to know whether the “edu-,
cational incentive pay” authorized by amended Article 1269m, V. T. C. S.,
is the exclusive allowance which may be made for education and training,
or whether the city may, in addition, grant incentive pay for completion of
training courses not meeting the requirements of that Article.
We feel compelled to answer that the authorized “educational incentive
pay” is the exclusive means of recognizing education and training in the pay
rate of police officers. The language of the statute is that “all persons in
each classification shall be paid the same salary . . . . ”
“An obvious legislative purpose in enacting the
quoted language was to prevent discrimination among
employees. It is clear the ordinance intends to estab-
lish a base pay rate for ‘all persuns in each classifica-
.,~ ,,tion, 1.and to.prpvide that all should ‘be paid the same
salary. ’ The fact that this same salary,increases with
,length d’tenure does not militate against this construction. ”
Nichols v. Houston Police Officers’ Pension Bd., 335
S. W. 2d 261, 263 (Tex. Civ.App., Waco, 1960. err.
ref’d., n. r.e.).
Prior to the 1973 amendments to the Act, the only permitted deviation
from absolutely uniform salaries within a job classification was for “longe-
vity or seniority, ” Even then, if the law was followed, any two officers in
the same job classification and having served the same number of years
p. 739
The Honorable Fred Toler, page 6 (H-159)
within a police department, should have received the same rate of pay.
The 1973 amendment permits an exception for certain clearly defined
and circumscribed educational efforts.
We therefore answer your third question that, in our opinion, it is
not permissible to provide additional incentive pay for completion of train-
ing courses which do not meet the requirements of amended Article 1269m.
V. T. C. S., for “educational incentive pay. ”
SUMMARY
1. Educational incentive payments, authorized
by Article 1269m, V. T. C. S., as amended in 1973, may
be based on completion of basic law enforcement core
curriculum courses at an accredited college or university
but not solely upon intermediate or advanced certificates
issued by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education.
2. In order to be eligible for educational incen-
tive payments a police officer must have completed law
enforcement courses comprising the “core curriculum”
approved by the Coordinating Board, Texas College and
University System and the Texas Commission on Law
Enforcement Officer Standards and Education,
3. Training courses or programs which do not
meet the statutory requirements for “educational incen-
tive pay” may not serve as the basis for incentive
payments to police officers.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
p. 740
i
The Honorable Fred Toler, page 7 (H-159)
DAVID AA. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 741
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion