2026-09-02 City Employee Accountability and Disciplinary Procedures Review - Government Operations Committee
2026-09-02 City Employee Accountability and Disciplinary Procedures Review - Government Operations Committee
The Government Operations Committee met on September 2, 2026, to review the City of Houston's employee accountability and disciplinary procedures, specifically the Positive Corrective Action Program (AP 3-7). The session included a presentation from Human Resources and a public comment from a union representative highlighting challenges in the Houston Emergency Center. No consent calendar items were discussed.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Kara Parker, Public Safety District Representative for HOPE and a supervisor at the Houston Emergency Center (HEC), spoke about the breakdown in consistent application of disciplinary policies across departments. She noted that HEC employees work significantly more hours (2,720–2,880 per year) than typical city employees (1,920 hours), yet the attendance policy is applied without adjusting for this increased workload. She argued that the city's disciplinary process is not broken, but departmental interpretations are too severe, leading to high turnover and unrealistic expectations. She requested that attendance policies mirror the higher work-hour demands and that a prorated approach be adopted for employees required to work mandatory overtime.
Discussion Items
- Introduction to AP 3-7: Elizabeth Rogers, Senior Division Manager of Employee Relations, and Director Cheeks presented the shift from a punishment-based progressive discipline system (with unpaid suspensions up to 15 days) to a positive corrective action model rooted in "discipline without punishment." The new system was piloted by the Houston Airport System, expanded by Houston Public Works, and adopted citywide in 2015. It emphasizes structured accountability, coaching, and employee buy-in, rather than fear and resentment. The policy applies to civilian civil service employees under Chapter 14 of the Code of Ordinances, with exceptions (e.g., HPD civilian employees).
- Process and Tools: The seriousness level chart helps supervisors evaluate issues. Investigations are handled by departments, the General Services Department Security Management Division (for complex cases), or the Office of Inspector General (for allegations like discrimination, harassment, or workplace violence). Seven tests of just cause ensure fairness. Formal steps progress from Level 1 to Level 2 to Decision-Making Leave; certain egregious violations (e.g., theft, falsification, violence) can lead directly to indefinite suspension.
- Discussion on Statistics and Effectiveness: Councilwoman Alcorn asked how many cases occur annually. Director Cheeks stated there are hundreds per year, with more Level 1 cases than Decision-Making Leaves. Councilman Ramirez inquired how the new model's effectiveness is measured. The director said data is now being collected through a centralized system that went live at the beginning of 2026, allowing tracking of violations and training needs. No comparable data existed from the old system.
- Clarification on a Recent Case: The chair referenced a KHOU report about an employee who went fishing five times while working. Director Cheeks clarified the employee was terminated for both theft of time and a threat made to another employee, not just fishing. If caught immediately, the employee would likely have received indefinite suspension (termination) for theft of city time.
- Criminal Referral Process: Councilman Ramirez asked about referring cases to the District Attorney. Director Cheeks explained that referrals happen through the legal department and OIG for egregious behavior, but the final decision rests with the department director.
- Elected Officials: In response to a staff question, the director stated that AP 3-7 does not apply to elected officials; their disciplinary matters go through the legal department.
- Appeal Process: Councilwoman Alcorn asked about the timeline for indefinite suspension: the city has 180 days from awareness to issue discipline, the employee has 10 days to appeal to the Civil Service Commission, and a hearing must be scheduled within 30 days (extendable to 60). If overturned, back pay is provided.
- Attendance Policies: Councilwoman Alcorn questioned how absenteeism is tracked. Director Cheeks said each department has its own attendance policy under the broad AP 3-11, which sets expectations but allows flexibility. Attendance is a progressive issue; most policies are reviewed by HR and legal for clarity. Councilwoman Alcorn expressed concern about inconsistency compared to objective point-based systems used in private industry.
- Retaliation and Military Leave: A staff member asked how retaliation complaints are handled (they go to OIG) and about training for managers on military leave. Director Cheeks noted that the Center for Public Leadership and Learning is developing programs for executives to ensure they understand leave categories.
Key Outcomes
- The committee received the presentation and asked follow-up questions on case statistics, effectiveness measures, and the application of attendance policies.
- Council members requested that Kara Parker's written attendance policy be shared with the committee to review the HEC's specific standards.
- The next regularly scheduled Government Operations Committee meeting was announced for Wednesday, October 7, 2026 at 2 p.m.to receive an update on Solid Waste Key Performance Indicators.
Meeting Transcript
And also from Councilwoman Twilight Carter, Councilman Castillo, and Councilmember. I forget. Peck. So thank you very much, and also the mayor of Pro Tem's office as well. So council members and staff, please hold your questions until the end of the presentations. If there are any members of the public that would like to participate in public comment, there's a sign-in sheet at the front of the table. And Director Cheeks, thank you for joining us. And you've got a presentation and uh also Elizabeth Rogers, Senior Division Manager of Employee Relations. We'll provide a review of the City of Houston's City Employee Accountability and Disciplinary Procedures. So thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Staff. Thank you for allowing HR to present on the city employee accountability and disciplinary procedures. The positive corrective action program prioritizes improvements, accountability, and coaching. AP 3 7 outlines clear, informal and formal steps to ensure fairness and consistency. The goal is not punishment, but a meaningful behavioral change supported by leadership. It reinforces transparency and due process. It also encourages early intervention before issues escalate. And the beauty of positive corrective action program is it provides opportunity not only to address behavior, but it surfaces any underlying issue that requires additional support, accommodation, or resources. Using the policy properly protects both employees and city, ensuring all actions align with legal and HR standards. As I've stated to supervisors, managers, and executives, it is imperative that we give our employees every opportunity to be successful while improving employee performance and strengthening accountability. AP 3 7 steps are as follows. Level one and level two provide structure while allowing flexibility based on severity and history. Training is actively underway across departments, reinforcing correct application of the policy. Next slide. So part of understanding why we use our current discipline model is recognizing where we came from. For many years, the city relied on a traditional progressive discipline system built around unpaid suspensions. Those suspensions ranged from three days, five, seven, ten, and even fifteen days. And a 15-day unpaid suspension, if you think about it, is a whole paycheck. So the philosophy behind that system was what many described as a pound of flesh approach. The belief that if discipline was painful, employees would avoid future violations. But the results were negative and counterproductive. Fear, resentment, inconsistent improvement, and operational disruptions caused by removing employees from the workploy workforce for long periods of time. As the city evaluated this model, it became clear that it did not build a high performing workforce. It did not drive meaningful change in behavior, performance, or attendance. That recognition led us to pursue a better and more effective approach. Next slide. So recognizing the need for change, the city made a deliberate shift away from the punishment-based discipline and adopted a model rooted in Dick Groat's discipline without punishment. This model fundamentally reshapes how organizations think about corrective action by replacing traditional punishment with structured, respectful accountability. It encourages employees to change their behavior through commitment, not coercion. The Houston Airport system was the first department to pilot this approach, demonstrating that positive accountability can work effectively in a high demand operational environment. Houston Public Works expanded the concept through its superior performance program, confirming its effectiveness across diverse municipal functions. In 2015, this accountability based framework was adopted citywide, marking a major shift in how we manage performance and behavior. The city replaced punitive measures with a system grounded in respect, fairness, and constructive guidance, one that aims to help employees genuinely improve rather than simply endure discipline. Next slide. AP 3 7 reflected that reflects that shift. It's grounded in mutual respect, clarity, and employee growth. The policy sets expectations in a consistent, predictable way for our civil service workforce. And importantly, AP 3 7 does not aim to punish someone into compliance. It aims to help employees understand expectations and succeed in meeting them.
openpublica.com