Loading...
Min 01/04/1972 498 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building January 4, 1972 Items 1 & 2 The Board of Aldermen of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, met in regular session on the above date in the Council Room of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 10:00 o'clock A.M. , with the following members present: Kenneth Hill Mayor Harry Campsey X Harrison E. Taylor Larry Lambert X Dick Darner J. C. Boyd, Jr. X Bill Drake H. P. Hodge, Jr. City Attorney Gerald Fox City Manager Wilma J. Thomas City Clerk The invocation was given by Alderman Boyd. Item 3 Moved by Alderman Campsey that minutes of the meeting held December 21, 1971, be approved. Motion seconded by Alderman Boyd, and carried unanimously. Item 4b Cletus Schenk, Attorney, appeared on behalf of the policewomen of the City of Wichita Falls . He stated that in 1964 the City began discriminating against the policewomen. He presented a supreme court case which held that no state can dis- criminate solely on the basis of sex. He mentioned another case presented to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He stated that these women have been working with the police department for as long as 20 years in some cases. He stated that he hated to see these women placed on shifts as basically telephone operators. He feels these jobs can be eliminated. He feels these persons are key personnel, and have arbitrarily been assigned to these positions. He stated that there is not a police officer on duty at all times (on their days off) . He stated that Sgt. Pilcher has taken part of Mrs. Peterson's duties. Mrs. Collier was secretary in the detective department. Mrs. Carver's job has been assumed by a sergeant. He stated that these women have been taken from key jobs, and placed in lesser jobs. Of eleven responses from police chiefs, none of them stated that they had a director of public safety over them. He stated that he believes it is important for the City Manager to take some of his time to find out what is going on first-hand. He does not believe that any of our directors of public safety have had any police experience, as is required by the Civil Service Act. These women are classified as police officers. Up until 1964 these women were paid the same, and did the same kind of work, as policemen. He stated that these women are doing less police work now than they were before. Of all the cities he contacted, none of them are discriminating as we are in Wichita Falls. He stated that he feels Mrs. Peterson could do as good a job as any Captain, and feels that she would be a captain today if it were not for discrimination. He feels the police chief should have more authority. He read from the reply from Garland, which stated that policewomen have all the rights afforded to policemen. He stated that what we need in our police depart- ment in order to put more patrolmen on the road is more women around the clock. He feels they are entitled to back pay in the amount of $26,700 since 1964, and an opportunity for immediate promotion to the next level. He also requested no re- strictions on their assignments, stating they are restricted to their desk jobs now. He stated that the Chief should be allowed to place them in any department that he sees fit. He feels it should not be stipulated that a woman replace a male. He stated that they had not been paid the same as patrolmen since they were placed in these duties on October 6, except for the last two pay days. 499 Item 4b, Cont'd. Alderman Campsey inquired why he did not hire these women in his department since he had built them up as super human. Mr. Schenk stated they were not quali- fied for his type of work. Alderman Campsey further remarked that if they were not happy, why had they not quit before? Mr. Schenk remarked that the police- women would not be sent out to pick up drunks , and Alderman Campsey inquired if he was asking for equal rights for women only as long as it benefits them? Alderman Lambert inquired why he did not bring these matters to the Council's attention when he was serving on the council. Mr. Schenk stated that he did not think at that time that it was intended to discriminate against these women. City Attorney H. P. Hodge, Jr. , stated that, as he recalled, he did not think the passage of any ordinance had anything to do with this at all. None of the classification ord- inances were designed to discriminate against any person. Names of classifications were changed in several areas. He stated that the law did not say that police- women and patrolmen were required to be paid the same because they were different classifications. Passage of an ordinance did not cause this. Alderman Lambert mentioned that the policewomen's claim was rejected in 1966 in Court. The judg- ment became final in June of 1967. He is asking the City to pay for at least a part of what the Courts said they were not entitled to in 1967. Alderman Boyd asked if they were presumed to know what the supreme court ruling was prior to November 22, 1971. This case is a new one. He stated that he feels he is asking a lot to go back to 1964 to ask for back pay. Mayor Hill stated that the City has voluntarily done what the Court did not require them to do in 1967. Now he expects the City to pay back pay. Moved by Alderman Lambert that the request for back pay be denied. Motion seconded by Alderman Campsey, and carried unanimously. Alderman Drake asked if women could be placed in clerical duties in reliev- ing patrolmen. The City Manager stated that they have endeavored to do this. The Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety use their discretion in assigning personnel where they can be best utilized. Alderman Campsey clarified that police- women and meter maids are different personnel. Alderman Boyd stated that perhaps we should look into the matter of whether the Director of Public Safety is quali- fied to serve in the police department. It was agreed that this would be done. Item 4a Mr. Joe Shaddock appeared in regard to dumping raw sewage on his clients prop- erty near the airport (Mr. D. B. Clark) . He mentioned that the septic tank was cleaned out on two different occasions, and with the amount removed it was not a minor problem. His client was forced to sell some of his cattle, move some cattle, and haul in water. He stated that at least three statutes were violated. He stated that for a period of ten months the city has operated an open cesspool on his property. He feels the City should award his client damages for the use of his land. Alderman Lambert inquired what he felt the damages should be. Mr. Shaddock stated that various statutes provide for fines. Violation is a maximum of $1000 per day, and the minimum is $50.00 per day. He stated that he is asking the Council to act as a jury. The Mayor stated that he preferred that Mr. Shaddock decide what damages he expects, talk it over with the City Manager, and let the City Manager make a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Shaddock stated that there are approximately 150 acres in his client's property. He does not know exactly how many cattle he had on this place. Alderman Lambert stated he felt that if Mr. Shaddock feels his client is entitled to damages, then he should take civil action to retain it. Moved by Alderman Lambert that the request for any relief on behalf of Mr. D. B. Clark be denied. Motion seconded by Alderman Drake. Mr. Shaddock stated that he felt the City should pay a fine for pollution since they charge fines for certain pollution. It was Mr. Shaddock's understand- ing that out-of-pocket expenses involved in moving cattle, hauling water, and selling cattle were from $1500 to $2000. Following another question, it was his estimate that Mr. Clark had 50-75 cows on this land. He was questioned as to whether part of this expense was caused by the drought last summer, as well as raw sewage, and he stated that it probably was. In trying to arrive at a dollar amount, he stated that alternatives should be considered on how it would be re- moved if they had to truck it out. As far- as trying to put a dollar amount on it, he mentioned the fine fee schedule; also, that $50.00 per day might be a reasonable sum, according to state statute. He and his client feels that the council could put some dollar amount on it. 500 i i Item 4a, Cont'd. The motion to deny his request was carried unanimously. Item 5 i A proposed ordinance was presented establishing naming of streets and number- ing of parcels and buildings. ORDINANCE NO. 2684 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE NAMING OF STREETS AND NUMBERING OF PARCELS AND BUILDINGS , STATING THE METHOD OF NUMBERING, THE KIND OF NUMBERS, THE DUTY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO DESIGNATE NAMES AND NUMBERS, AND PRO- VIDING FOR A PENALTY. Moved by Alderman Drake that Ordinance No. 2684 be passed. Motion seconded by Alderman Darner. Alderman Boyd inquired if the Planning Board had gone into the cost involved to individuals or the City. Stephen Ondrejas, Director of Planning, stated that the cost to the individual would be nominal since the City would notify all major local agencies of the address change. Deeds would not be affected since they are described by lot and block. They feel the benefits would outweigh the costs involved. It was mentioned that there are 18 to 20 streets that need to be changed, and approximately 100 street signs to be changed, at a cost of $10.00 per sign. Hopefully, some of these signs would be included in this year 's budget on a rotating basis. The motion for passage of the ordinance was carried by the following vote: Ayes : Aldermen Campsey, Taylor, Lambert, Darner, Boyd, and Drake Nays : None Item 6 A proposed resolution was presented authorizing the City Manager to execute a continuing agreement with the Texas Highway Department for comprehensive trans- portation planning. RESOLUTION NO. 1253 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, THAT: The proposed extension of the agreement between the State of Texas, acting by and through its Highway Engineer, and the City of Wichita Falls, dated February 2, 1967, providing for the continuing phase of the Urban Transportation Study is hereby approved and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the same for the City of Wichita Falls, Texas. Moved by Alderman Darner that Resolution No. 1253 be passed. Motion seconded by Alderman Campsey, and carried by the following vote: Ayes : Aldermen Campsey, Taylor, Lambert, Darner, Boyd, and Drake Nays : None t Item 7 Joe Smith Director of Public Utilities requested final�,/• � q payment to Opex, Inc. , in the amount of $2,093.50 for sanitary sewer improvements in Arrowhead Industrial District. Moved by Alderman Boyd that final payment be authorized as requested. Motion seconded by Alderman Drake, and carried unanimously. 501 Item 8 Permission was requested to advertise for bids for annual supplies of gasoline, tires and tubes , and linen for all departments. Moved by Alderman Darner that authority be granted to advertise for bids as requested. Motion seconded by Alderman Boyd, and carried unanimously. r Item 9 r' 9 Moved by Alderman Lambert that consideration of the request for reduced bus fares to be tabled. Motion seconded by Alderman Boyd, and carried unanimously. Item 10 Mayor Hill appointed G. A. Benesh and Guy McNeeley as interim municipal judges at an annual salary of $13,400 based on a daily rate. Moved by Alderman Taylor that the interim municipal judge appointments and salary be approved. Motion seconded by Alderman Lambert, and carried unanimously. Moved by Alderman Boyd that the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by Alderman Drake, and carried unanimously. The Board of Aldermen adjourned at 11:58 rLe� PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1972. Mayor ATTEST: City Cle k