Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfd Seif topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reprimands Dallas College training coordinator and debates academy oversight
Summary
Following an SOA proposal for decision the commission accepted a reprimand for Dallas College training coordinator Jeffrey Seif, removing one conclusion of law while sparking extended debate over advisory boards' discretion and academy oversight.
Get email alerts on the Pfd Seif topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement voted to accept most of the State Office of Administrative Hearings' (SOA) proposal for decision in the case of Jeffrey Seif, a former training coordinator at the Dallas College Law Enforcement Academy, and issued a reprimand while removing one contested legal conclusion from the order.
Staff told the commission the ALJ found Mr. Seif failed to enforce admission, attendance and retention standards but did not find that he had submitted a false or untruthful report of training; the ALJ recommended a reprimand. The executive director recommended the commission accept the PFD but modify conclusion of law number 19. After extensive questioning and debate about the tone and legal framing of the PFD, commissioners voted to accept the modified PFD and reprimand Mr. Seif.
Mr. Seif traveled from North Texas and told commissioners he had resigned from his academy appointment, asked them to "vacate this entirely" and urged them to follow SOA's recommended reprimand rather than harsher discipline. Staff and several commissioners acknowledged mitigating evidence and the ALJ's findings but stressed that, as academy director, ultimate responsibility for cadet outcomes and documentation rests with the director.
Commissioners used the discussion to flag a broader policy question: whether academy advisory boards can, in practice, exercise discretion that effectively waives standards the commission expects, and whether TCOL rules should be tightened to require advisory‑board decisions to be memorialized in cadet manuals. One commissioner moved to place a proposed rule change on the February agenda to review train‑provider advisory boards; the chair agreed to add the item for further consideration.
The commission framed the reprimand as both a sanction for the individual case and an impetus to strengthen oversight; staff said the agency is building additional oversight capacity and will review academy contracts and monitoring practices as resources allow. The commission will revisit potential rule changes in a future meeting and directed staff to follow up on administrative implementation of the reprimand.

