La Marque and police association begin CBA talks; city proposes comp‑time cap, phased removal of corporal rank and manager appointments

La Marque city officials and representatives of the La Marque Police Association met June 11 in a public bargaining session to review a package of proposals the city described as economic and non‑economic changes to the police collective bargaining agreement.

The city manager, JB Pritchett, and Chief of Police Randall Erb outlined proposals that would (1) require payout of accumulated compensatory time above 180 hours instead of allowing indefinite accrual, (2) phase out the corporal rank over time and move to a dual‑sergeant shift model, and (3) give the chief authority to appoint several supervisory positions. The parties recessed for caucus and agreed to continue negotiations, with a tentative next meeting set for July 2.

Why it matters: changes to comp time, rank structure and supervisory appointments affect department staffing, individual officers’ pay and duties, and the city’s budget exposure for unpaid liabilities. The proposals include operational clarifications the city says are intended to reduce an ‘‘unfunded liability’’ tied to large comp‑time balances and to create administrative capacity as the department grows.

Most important proposals and clarifications

The city presented a set of measures it said were intended to address budget liability and create managerial capacity. City materials and speakers described the comp‑time change this way: under the current CBA an officer may accumulate up to 180 hours of compensatory time and, if the balance exceeds 180 hours, the officer “must be paid for overtime worked” after efforts to bring balances below 120 hours; the city’s proposal would require payment of any comp time balance that exceeds 180 hours instead of allowing continued accrual. As the city’s representative summarized, “it’s the unfunded liability issue. The city citywide is attempting to address that and is encouraging people to use the time that they have.” (City staff member Knoebel.)

On rank structure, the city’s proposal would phase out the corporal position via natural attrition and either reassign or promote existing corporals; no one currently holding a corporal position would be removed from that rank as a result of the phase‑out, negotiators said. The city also proposed a set of appointed supervisory slots the chief would fill: the initial materials listed the chief’s discretion to appoint “up to 8 officers” with a suggested breakdown of 2 captains, 3 lieutenants and 3 sergeants. City counsel later clarified that the intent is not to reduce tested supervisory positions: currently there are five tested sergeant positions and three tested lieutenant positions; the proposal would add appointed sergeant positions (the city noted a scenario of eight sergeants in total, five tested plus three appointed) and would not eliminate any existing tested promotion opportunities.

Association concerns and bargaining process

John Kerr, lead negotiator for the Combined Law Enforcement Association, said the union wanted clear answers for members before returning to the wider membership and requested time for a caucus with negotiators. Kerr said the bargaining team planned to compile concise questions for management so they could provide precise answers to members: “We want to make sure that we have a 100% rock solid answer to any of the things that anyone may have seen…,” Kerr said. The association repeatedly asked the city to confirm whether the chief’s appointed positions would be new budgeted headcount; the city said the appointments would generally come from existing staff and would not necessarily increase authorized headcount immediately.

Other items raised by the city

The city proposed several other compensation and assignment changes that it flagged as either opposed or concurred for negotiation purposes. Examples discussed on the record included increased investigator pay, a proposed SRT (Special Response Team) stipend increase that city staff said they opposed because of overtime implications, and a proposal to prohibit supervisors (sergeant rank and higher) from holding secondary employment outside the city due to ‘‘optics’’ concerns. The city also asked for expanded salary survey context—asking staff to provide revenue‑normalized comparisons and percent‑of‑budget indicators for peer cities so members could better judge pay relativity.

Process and next steps

No formal motions or votes were taken. The parties recessed to caucus during the meeting and reconvened later the same day to continue discussion. Both sides agreed to collect clarifying data and to present those answers to membership; they set a follow‑up bargaining date of July 2. City staff said some clarifications (budget comparisons and survey boxes) could be produced quickly by finance staff.

What was not decided

There was no final agreement on any contract language during the June 11 session. The city framed some changes (for example, comp‑time payout) as a budgetary concern to be phased and explained, while the association repeatedly emphasized members should not ‘‘lose’’ existing tested positions or ranks as part of any transition. Several operational details—how many corporals would convert to sergeant over a specific timeline, exact pay tables for appointed sergeants, and whether certain stipends would change—were left for subsequent bargaining and written clarification.

Ending

Both sides agreed to provide written clarifications of the items discussed and to reconvene. The session closed with an agreement to meet July 2 to continue negotiations; no formal votes or contract ratifications occurred at the June 11 meeting.