to find a Commission violation where the Commission has made no ruling that the post-it note was test material, the arbitrator concludes that the City cannot meet the ‘preponderance of evidence’ test. Thus, the charge against Salvag-gio cannot be found to be true. (emphasis added). The hearing examiner’s written decision also contained additional findings addressing the investigative report’s “underlying inference that Lt. Salvaggio engaged in an act of cheating or attempted cheating.” The hearing examiner found the record did not contain any evidence that Salvaggio engaged in any conduct that constitutes cheating or an attempt to cheat. The City filed an appeal of the hearing examiner’s decision and award in district court. See City of Houston v. Clark, 197 S.W.3d 314, 324 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>). As grounds for the appeal, the City alleged
holding that this court has inherent as well as express statutory authority to punish for contempt holding municipality as well as employee has right to appeal hearing examiners award in district court holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal