Laredo bargaining session advances proposal to change police promotion rules, testing and timelines

City and union negotiators in Laredo spent the bargaining session focusing on proposed revisions to Article 12 of the police collective bargaining agreement that would change how investigators are evaluated for promotion.

The package presented groups several changes: increasing the minimum time-in-rank for investigators seeking promotion to sergeant from three years to four; removing oral interviews for investigators (retaining them for lieutenant and above) and reducing the investigator exam’s total points; deducting points from candidates’ scores for suspensions occurring within a specified look-back period; and requiring candidates to hold any required college hours or degrees at the time they take a promotional test. A city representative told negotiators the contract changes would take effect after the agreement’s effective date.

Why it matters: negotiators framed the changes as a way to produce more experienced supervisors more quickly and to shorten promotion timelines. Union participants countered that adding time-in-rank or removing oral interviews could create obstacles for talented candidates and urged stronger investments in leadership training, rotations and other professional-development paths so investigators can gain supervisory experience without being stalled by time-based requirements.

On the oral-interview proposal, the bargaining package would omit investigators from oral boards to cut time and administrative burden; proponents said this would expedite promotions for a large candidate pool. Opponents said the oral board can surface leadership and communicative skills that written testing does not capture. Several negotiators proposed alternatives such as allowing a written supplement, factoring non-cumulative performance evaluations into scores, or establishing a short leadership course (with lesson plans reportedly available from the training division).

A contested technical point concerned disciplinary deductions: the proposal would subtract points for suspension days occurring within a three-year window prior to testing. Union speakers suggested a two-year window might be fairer; the negotiators agreed to discuss that further.

The parties also discussed extending the chief’s deadline to fill vacancies in situations with no active list. The union proposed lengthening the chief’s timeframe from 90 to 180 days to account for the multi-step process of approving test materials, administering exams, grading and managing appeals. As an inducement, union negotiators said they might accept back pay and seniority if the city agreed to a longer timeframe, but other participants warned that longer timelines would not cure delays that negotiators blamed on the civil service commission.

During the session a union representative said the civil service commission "is not doing the job," arguing that delays happen when lists and books are not processed in a timely manner; city participants said some delays stem from planning and distribution of study materials and suggested internal process changes to keep the 90-day timeline in practice. Training and rotation options — including dual career tracks and in-house supervisor training overseen by the department’s training lieutenant — were raised as potential compromises to reduce the harm of time-based requirements.

On education requirements, negotiators proposed that ranks requiring degrees (for example, captains) should have those credentials at the time of appointment; speakers noted incumbents and those already working toward degrees would be treated differently and that HR and administration would need to track compliance under the contract’s time windows.

Budget and retention items were discussed later in the session. City officials said finances were constrained and requested ballpark cost numbers from the union so proposals (compression fixes, assignment/longevity pay, education incentives, fitness pay, or sick-leave buyback options) could be costed and presented to city council. Both sides agreed to caucus, exchange figures, and reconvene with costed proposals.

What’s next: negotiators asked teams to cost out suggested pay and retention measures and to return with proposals at the next bargaining session (parties discussed meeting again on June 10). No formal votes or contract ratifications were recorded during this session.

Quotes from the session that illustrate the debate include a training leader noting lesson plans are available to build leadership curricula, and a union representative saying the civil service commission is creating a bottleneck in the promotion process. The session ended with a commitment to continue negotiations and to exchange ballpark cost figures before the next meeting.