Freeport officers press council on pay; petition for civil service to go to voters, legal says November is earliest date

Officers and supporters told the Freeport City Council on Feb. 18 that some Freeport Police Department employees did not receive a citywide cost-of-living adjustment that other city staff received, and asked the council to act on pay and on a petition to let voters decide whether to adopt municipal civil service rules.

At a public-comment period, Jared Miller, a Freeport resident and officer with the Freeport Police Department, described officers’ work and said rank-and-file personnel and dispatchers “did not receive their cost of living adjustments either.” He said colleagues fear retaliation for speaking publicly and called on the council to “bring awareness to this injustice.”

The petition to put adoption of municipal civil service before voters was filed in February. Hans Martacek, a retired Houston police officer who said he represents the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, asked the council to allow the election in May; he said he and petition supporters relied on sections of the Local Government Code and the Election Code in reaching that conclusion.

City legal counsel told council the Texas statutes governing municipal civil service (Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code) and the state Election Code (Chapter 41) require any special election called under that process to be scheduled on a uniform election date, and that the practical calendar and statutory posting and review timelines mean the May uniform election date had already passed for the petition received in February. The city attorney summarized: “Section 143.004 . . . the election must be held on the first uniform election date prescribed by chapter 41 . . . which allows sufficient time to comply with all the requirements of law.”

City staff, including Human Resources and the police chief, explained how the police pay program works. The city’s civilian staff salary increase voted in last year was described as a citywide COLA for eligible employees; the police department is on a separate step-pay matrix layered with automatic anniversary-step increases. Human Resources staff said the step program gives officers automatic step increases on their anniversary dates and that, by policy, officers on the matrix were not eligible for the separately-budgeted COLA the council approved for other eligible employees.

Council members debated options after the legal explanation. Some council members urged immediate corrective action on pay and demanded assurance there was no retaliation toward employees who raised concerns; others asked the police who feel aggrieved to use HR channels and to inform council if they cannot use internal options. Legal staff recommended the petition be reviewed by the city secretary for statutory sufficiency and that, if it qualifies, the council place it on the next uniform election date that complies with state law (November). No final ordinance scheduling a date was adopted during the meeting.

The discussion included repeated calls from council members for staff to confirm and, if incorrect pay actions occurred, to remedy outstanding payroll or back pay quickly. Several council members also said they would seek an outside or second legal opinion about whether the city could call a standalone special municipal election outside the uniform dates and at what municipal cost, and directed staff to follow up.

What happens next: City staff will complete the petition verification and return to council with formal recommendations and an ordinance or order consistent with the legal deadlines described by counsel. If verified, legal staff told the council the earliest uniform election date for such a measure that satisfies statute and notice requirements is the November uniform election date.