[00:00:04]
[1. Roll Call ]
A MUNICIPAL FIRE POLICE, CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ORDER.PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE AND SPEAKING TO THANK YOU.
UM, I LIKE TO CALL IT WATER, THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING.
THE TIME IS 10 50 TODAY'S TUESDAY, MAY 24TH.
AND, UH, LIKE TO BEGIN WITH THE WHOLE CAR.
JOHN SMITH, PRESIDENT JOHN DOE DA SHARON LEWIS.
HAS IT JOSHUA DORA, BRANDON WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT AND PRINCE ROBINSON PRESENT.
UH, THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, MR. CLIFF, HAVING TWO MINUTES.
UH, YES, I WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE YESTERDAY.
I WAS COMING BACK FROM TEXAS REALLY.
WASN'T PLANNING ON BEING HERE TODAY, BUT, UH, YESTERDAY, UH, THE BOARD UPON ADVICE OF COUNSEL, UH, MADE THE, UH, THE ORDER TO DIRECT COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
AND, UH, MR. DUFFY'S TWO MATTERS PENDING FOR THE 1980 C, UH, TO DIRECT THE PARTIES, TO SUBMIT, UH, UH, PROPOSED FACT FINDINGS.
AND MY OBJECTION, UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS MERELY REDUCED TO, I DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT.
MY OBJECTION ACTUALLY, WHICH WAS IN WRITING WAS THIS.
PLEASE NOTE MY OBJECTION TO THE BOARD, ORDERING THE ADVOCATES FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, I DO NOT SEE BECAUSE MR. DARIN RAISED THE POINT IN HIS EMAIL THAT HE WASN'T ON THE BOARD AND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT PRESENTED HIM.
BUT I RESPONDED THAT I DID NOT SAY HOW IT IS RELEVANT, THAT YOU WERE NOT ON THE BOARD ATTORNEY AT THE TIME OF THE HEARINGS AND WOULD HAVE HAD NO VOTE IN THE MATTER THE BOARD MEMBERS ALONE WERE THE FACT FINDER AND FOR THE FIVE OF THEM THAT HEARD THOSE MATTERS REMAIN ON THIS BOARD.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT SHOULD HAVE RAISED THE COLLECTIVE EYEBROWS OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WHEN THEIR COUNSEL ADVISED THEM OF MAKING SUCH AN ORDER.
BECAUSE BACK ON FEBRUARY THE FOURTH, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION BY THE FORMAL BOARD ATTORNEY ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SOME LITIGATION OR APPEALS IN THE 19TH JDC CURRENTLY, HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT ISSUING FINDINGS OF FACT? UM, THIS IS WHAT THE, UH, THE JDC IS ACTUALLY WAITING ON TWO CASES IN PARTICULAR, HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT IT IF YOU WERE HIRED TODAY, ISSUING THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT, CURRENT BOARD COUNSEL REPLIED WAS YOU'D HAVE TO REVIEW THE RECORD, THE TESTIMONY AND THE QUESTIONING, THE BOARD DELIBERATIONS I'D WANT TO TALK TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AS TO WHAT THEY DECIDED, THEIR TRAIN OF THOUGHT, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
AND THEN OF COURSE YOU HAD DRAFTED UP.
THAT'S THE REALITY, THE GOOD THING ABOUT THE FIRM.
THIS IS ANOTHER THING I'M GLAD WE'RE TALKING THROUGH THIS.
WHEN YOU GET ME, YOU GET THE FARM, YOU USUALLY YOU'RE SIGNING A CONTRACT WITH GOLDWING.
SO TO THE EXTENT YOU HAD ANY CONCERNS ABOUT EXPERIENCE, I'VE GOT TWO LAW PARTNERS THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE REALITY OF IT.
THEY JUST UNLEASHED ME BECAUSE I WAS PRETTY GOOD AT IT.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF READING THE RECORD, UNDERSTANDING THE RECORD, DRAFTING SOMETHING, BRINGING IT TO YOU TO YOU GUYS.
HEY, IS THIS WHAT YOU GUYS WANT TO RELAY TO THE COURT AND GO FROM THERE? THAT'S A FAR CRY FROM THE POSITION THAT WAS TAKEN YESTERDAY.
AND, UH, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE TWO ADVOCATES TO GAME THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ALSO TO ATTEMPT TO GET INTO YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS FROM A HEARING THAT WAS HELD SEVEN, EIGHT MONTHS AGO, ESPECIALLY WHEN FOUR OF YOU STILL ARE HERE AND THAT CONSTITUTES QUARREL.
THE OTHER THING, THERE'S SOME LIMITATIONS THAT WERE, AND I GET IT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THESE BOARD HEARINGS.
UM, THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE ME WATCH THAT YESTERDAY IN PARTICULAR, AS SOON AS YOU HAVE THAT SECOND ATTORNEY CONFIRM THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THE FACTS, SOMEBODY SHOULD HAVE BLOWN THE WHISTLE AND SAID, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, WHY ARE WE TAKING TESTIMONY? AND THAT EMBODIED DR.
ROBINSON'S QUESTION LATE IN THE HEARING THAT WAS DIRECTED TO THE OFFICER, WHY DIDN'T YOU APPEAL THIS? THERE WASN'T.
THERE WERE, THERE WERE NO ISSUES OF FACT.
WHY DID YOU TAKE TESTIMONY? AND IT BOILED DOWN TO, I THOUGHT THE PUNISHMENT WAS TOO HARSH.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THIS BOARD SHOULD HAVE HEARD THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN 15 MINUTES, UM, AND OR MORE YET THE ISSUE OF WHETHER HE DID IT OR WHETHER IT WAS JUST CALLS, UH, COULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, AND THAT WOULD HAVE SPED THINGS ALONG QUICKLY.
SO I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS WITHOUT CONSTANTLY COMPLAINING.
IT'S AN UNCOMPENSATED BOARD, BUT NONE OF IT, NONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE DRAFTED EVERYBODY'S HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE.
[00:05:01]
THESE EMPLOYEES, LIVELIHOODS, YOU KNOW, IF THIS, IF THIS BOARD WAS HEARING MINE OR YOUR COUNCILS WALL LICENSE, UH, WE, I KNOW WE WOULD WANT, OR ANYBODY'S PROFESSIONAL LICENSE.WE WOULD WANT A FULL HEARING IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE GRANTED THEY ELECTED TO BECOME POLICE OFFICERS, BUT, AND MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PROTECTIONS THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW GIVES THEM, THEY GIVE UP CERTAIN RIGHTS LIKE MR. JOHN SMITH HERE, HE GIVES UP A LOT OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, NAMELY HE CANNOT CONTRIBUTE TO OR ADVOCATE PUBLICLY FOR A POLITICAL CANDIDATE OF HIS CHOICE.
SO THERE'S WAYS TO BE ABLE TO DO ABOUT OUR THANKS, BUT I UNDERSTAND.
MA'AM THAT'S LIEUTENANT WITH RETIRED LIEUTENANT TERRY LYNN WITT.
W I T T UM, I DIDN'T KNOW IF I SHOULD COME UP NOW OR IF I SHOULD WAIT FOR IT TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THE COUNCIL.
WHENEVER Y'ALL TAKE THAT UP ABOUT, I HAD WRITTEN A LETTER OF INVESTIGATION REQUEST ON CHIEF MURPHY, PAUL FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY NOTIFY THE METRO COUNCIL.
WE'RE GOING TO ADD IT TO THE END OF AT LATER ON IN THE AGENDA.
IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, IT'S UP TO YOU.
I CAN EITHER SAY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY NOW, OR THEN IT'S REALLY, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPER, WELL, WE'LL JUST WAIT UNTIL WE BRING IT UP.
[2. Review and Approve Agenda ]
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL REVIEW AND APPROVE THE AGENDA.UH, AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE ITEMS THREE, FOUR, AND SEVEN FROM THE AGENDA.
THAT IS THE APPEAL HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE ON YESTERDAY THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT CARRY OVER TILL TODAY.
THEN, UH, THE JASON OVAL HEARING, WHICH WE'VE REACHED A, UM, UH, CONSENT DISCIPLINE OR AGREEMENT AND ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS THE EXECUTIVE BOARD SESSION, UH, FOR THE BOARD SECRETARY, WHICH SHE WISHED YOU HAVE TAKE PLACE IN THE OPEN MEETING SCENARIO.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, I LIKE TO MOVE THAT SHERIFF PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER.
MOTION OR THERE'S ONE THAT'S HAPPENING.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REMOVE THESE ITEMS FROM THE AGENDA.
SECONDLY, I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, TO ADD, TO CONSIDER THE REVIEWS OF THE PAS AND, UH, THAT WILL TAKE PLACE THAT WILL BECOME ITEM NUMBER THREE.
IS THAT A MOTION TO DISMISS MOTION TO ADD ON, TO CONSIDER, UH, TO REVIEW PAS? WAS IT THAT YOU MEAN? SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERY TIME WE WILL FORMULATE REVIEW IN OUR AGENDA AS A PART OF OUR AGENDA.
THIS IS JUST, UM, YEAH, THIS IS ALL RIGHT.
IT LOOKS TO BE JUST POLICE, BUT YES WE DO.
SO, UM, I HAVE A MOTION TO REVIEW TO ADD ON, TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW PAS.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND SECOND BY MR. SMITH.
UM, I ALSO HAVE AN ITEM TO ADD A MOTION TO, UM, TO ADD THE CONSIDERATION OF INVESTIGATION BY LIEUTENANT TERRY WIT, WHICH WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
ALRIGHT, SO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADD THE CONSIDERATION OF INVESTIGATION BY LIEUTENANT WITH, IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND BY PRESS? UH, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
UH, I'D ASKED MS. PENNY TO READ THE NEW AGENDA.
AGAIN, ONE ROW CALL TO PROVE AGENDA.
NUMBER THREE, YOU HAD AN ADD ON THAT IS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS RECEIVED FROM BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I BELIEVE YOU ADDED THAT AS NUMBER THREE, IF I'M CORRECT.
UM, NUMBER FOUR WAS, UH, REPLACE, UH, AN APPEAL HEARING THAT WAS DISMISSED AND REPLACE IT WITH A REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION FROM LIEUTENANT TERRY WITH THEN I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY.
AND THEN CONTINUE ON WITH NUMBER FIVE REQUESTS FOR AN INVESTIGATION, JOE GALLI.
NUMBER SIX, DISCUSS A BOARD INVESTIGATIONS AND THEN PROCEED ON TO NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSS AND OR CONSIDER ISSUES SURROUNDING BOARD SECRETARY.
AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BECOME NUMBER SEVEN.
[00:10:01]
THEN NUMBER EIGHT WOULD BE DO A JURY.BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES WITH THE CHANGES TO, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH CHANGES.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY JOHN SMITH, ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED MOTION PASSES.
SO THAT MOVES US ALL INTO, UH,
[Additional Item #1 ]
ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS WHERE WE REVIEW THE PAS.I'LL PASS THESE AROUND BEFORE THEY'RE SIGNED AND MS. WOULD, YOU COULD PREPARE TO COME UP.
UM, AND I'LL MAKE IT QUICK BECAUSE I'M REALLY JUST HERE IN PERSON.
I WAS PREPARED WHILE WE WERE DOING WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT YOUR PEERS.
AND AGAIN, I MAY HAVE HERE THIS ISN'T A THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, SO YOU WANT APPROVAL? YEAH.
I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PAS SECONDED BY JOHN SMITH, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[Additional Item #2 ]
BELIEVES JUST ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS, UM, THE TENDER TERRY WITH HI.UM, I JUST, I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE TOO MUCH OF Y'ALL'S TIME.
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE Y'ALL EVEN ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO DEFINITELY SHOW UP IN PERSON TO EXPLAIN TO YOU OR AT LEAST SHOW THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MATTER TO ME.
UM, I SERVED FOR 28 YEARS AS A FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER WITH THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT I WAS GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAWS AND GUIDANCE THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE LAWS AND YOUR BOARD, WHAT YOU REPRESENT.
UM, SO WHEN I LEARNED OF THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY, UM, THE METRO COUNCIL EAST BATON ROUGE, METRO COUNCIL BY CHIEF MURPHY, PAUL OF THE ELECTION, WHEN BY SERGEANT JOHN DOSSIER, I WAS GREATLY OFFENDED BY THAT MATTER BECAUSE IT'S A INSULT TO THE PROCESS, IF THAT IS DETAILED BY LAW.
UM, I DID DETAIL IT OUT IN MY LETTER, SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S NECESSARY TO REITERATE WHAT I ALREADY PUT IN THE LETTER.
THE ONLY OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP TO POINT IS, UM, NOT ONLY IN BOTH CIVIL COURT AND CIVIL CODE, BUT ALSO IN LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE VERY DETAILED THAT, UM, IGNORANCE IS NOT A DEFENSE OF THE LAW.
SO THE LAW FOR HIS NOTIFICATION AS A SHOUT, IT'S DETAILED IN THE LAW, IT IS A REQUIREMENT IT'S NOT OPTIONAL.
SO I'M JUST GONNA ASK THAT THE BOARD TAKE THIS INVESTIGATION SERIOUSLY AND WITH FULL INTENT OF MY LETTER, UM, THERE'S ALSO ALSO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE WITH THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT ALSO GOVERN THESE OFFICERS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE LEADER OF A DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS AND PROCEDURES.
HOW, HOW DID YOU LEARN OVER THE LAW OF THE BROW OR THE BREACH OF THE LAW? THERE WAS ORIGINALLY A POST BY SERGEANT
SO I THOUGHT HE WOULD BE A GREAT REPRESENTATIVE.
AND THEN I LEARNED THAT APPARENTLY
[00:15:01]
PRIOR TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE BECAUSE HE HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPOINTED THROUGH THE COUNCIL.I HAVE, DID YOU MAKE THE DEPARTMENT AWARE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PULL THAT INFORMATION? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S MY OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY THEM OF THE LAW THAT THEY SHOULD BE AWARE OF.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT SERGEANT
LET ME, LET ME PROVIDE SOME BRIGHT BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR YOU ON THAT.
UM, WELL, SO WHAT HAPPENED SERGEANT JOVIA HE SENT AN EMAIL, UH, TO BOTH ME.
I THINK IT MIGHT'VE BEEN TO EVERYBODY ASKING WHY HIS BEING SWORN IN WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.
AND SO, UH, I BEGAN TO, YOU KNOW, QUESTION, WHY WOULD IT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA? AND SO WE STARTED TRYING TO RESEARCH WHAT WILL BE GOING ON, COME TO FIND OUT IT WAS NEVER REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.
HE MISSED BREAD OR DIDN'T READ THAT HE WAS STILL ON THE AGENDA.
AND SO DURING THAT TIME WE WERE DOING RESEARCH WITH THE STATE EXAMINER'S BOARD AND STUFF.
AND THAT'S WHEN WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE LAW OURSELVES, MR. SERGEANT DOTY DID NOT KNOW THAT HE HAD TO GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK BECAUSE IF HE DID, HE WOULD'VE MADE SURE IT WAS DONE ALREADY.
SO THE NEW LAW THAT TOOK PLACE IN, UM, JULY OF 21, I THINK IF, UH, IT JUST CAME UP ABOUT TO, TO BE HONEST, NO ONE WAS AWARE OF IT.
SO, UM, THE QUESTION IS AT THE POINT THAT IT WASN'T ANONYMOUS MISTAKE ON BOTH SIDES BECAUSE NOBODY KNEW ABOUT IT UNTIL WE BEGAN TO RESEARCH WHY HE WASN'T GOING TO BE APPOINTED OR SWORN IN WHICH WASN'T THE CASE.
UM, WE, WE, WE BECAME ABREAST OF THE LAW AND THEN I ACTUALLY ADVISED HIM ON HOW I THOUGHT WE CAN EXPECT EXPEDITED.
UH, WE ATTEMPTED TO GO THROUGH THE STATE TROOPERS, WHICH COULD PROVIDE A BACKGROUND CHECK IN 24 HOURS, RIGHT? SO WE TRIED TO GET HIM ON BECAUSE NOBODY KNEW THAT THE LAW EXISTED.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TRY AND GET INTO.
IF WE HAVE HONEST MISTAKES THAT ARE BEING MADE ON AND YOU COULD SEE NOBODY WAS AWARE OF IT, THEN WHAT DO WE DO? DO WE BEGIN WHAT WHAT'S THE PUNITIVE DAMAGE AND HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE RECTIFY IT? SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S MY QUESTION TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE THE PERSON WHO'S ASKING ME WHAT, I MEAN, I'LL PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY.
I QUOTED EVERYTHING IN MY LETTER DIRECTLY OFF THE POLICE AND FIRE CIVIL SERVICE AND THE LAWS THAT ARE WRITTEN THERE.
SO I TOOK THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE WEBSITE.
IF WE WERE TO GO OUT, IF I WAS GOING TO GO OUT AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TODAY AND ENFORCE A LAW THAT BECAME THE LAW, A SEATBELT LAW OR A CHILD RESTRAINT LAW, AND THAT VIOLIN TELLS ME, WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW, AGAIN, I'VE ALREADY ADVISED YOU THAT STATUTE ALREADY DICTATES THE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A DEFENSE.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWER FOR YOU HOW YOUR INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO PLAY OUT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT AGAIN, THAT'S MY PLACE.
I DON'T FEEL IT'S MY PLACE TO SAY WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE TO KNOW THE LAW, BUT IT IS THE LAW.
AND IF I'M GOING TO HOLD A JANUARY CITIZEN OF THIS CITY, OF THIS PARISH, OF THIS STATE TO KNOW THAT A LAW EXISTS, EVERYONE SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SAME WORLD.
OKAY? NO, I THINK, UH, AT THIS POINT, THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO, UM, TAKE ON THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION.
SO WHENEVER A PETITION IS BROUGHT BY A CITIZEN, UH, THE BOARD KIND OF HAS TO DO THIS ANALYSIS OF DECIDING IF THERE'S JUST CAUSE, UM, WE'VE CERTAINLY HAD LIEUTENANT WIT GIVE HER SIDE OF THE STORY.
UH, WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE CHIEF AND YOU GUYS KNOW ME.
I'M BIG ON TRYING TO LET BOTH SIDES, AT LEAST SAY THEIR PIECE BEFORE YOU GUYS MAKE A DECISION ON JUST COST, BUT YOU KNOW, HE'S NOT HERE TO SPEAK.
SO, UH, THAT'S THE DECISION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO MAKE.
IS THERE JUST CAUSE FOR AN INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF GUIDANCE IN THE CASE LAW AS TO WHAT JUST CAUSES FOR THIS.
UH, SO I THINK IT'S A DISCRETIONARY DEAL.
UM, BUT IF YOU GUYS DECIDE THERE IS JUST CAUSE YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO PROCEED WITH AN INVESTIGATION.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME, WE NOW KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
MY QUESTION IS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO INVESTIGATE? WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO
[00:20:01]
DO.IF THE CHIEF IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, THEN WE SIMPLY INDICATE THAT TO THE CHIEF AND ASKED HIM TO DO THAT FROM NOW ON.
BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO INVESTIGATE? I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY FOUND OUT WHAT THE SITUATION WAS AND WHY HE WAS NOT SEEING IT.
IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF THE LAW.
IS IT BECAUSE OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK NEEDED? CORRECT.
SO I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THE INVESTIGATION.
WE'VE NOW BEEN MADE AWARE OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND WE NEED SOMETHING TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
SO THE LTA PAST THE ELECTION, THIS NEW STATUTE CAME INTO EFFECT LAST, UH, JULY, AUGUST GOT PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS OR LEGISLATION OUT OF THE CONGRESS, BUT I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE CHIEF DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING.
HE COULD HAVE, I DON'T SEE WHY HE WOULD DO IT BECAUSE EVENTUALLY HE'S GOING TO GET SEATED ON THE BOARD AND BE SWORN IN JUST LIKE HE WAS, OH, IF THERE WAS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND I JUST DON'T SEE THERE BEING ANY ILL CONTENT OR, YOU KNOW, MANIPULATION BY DON BY THE CHIEF.
OH, THE LAW IS HE HAS TO REPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE ELECTION TO THE METRO COUNCIL.
BUT THEN 15 DAYS, THE METRO COUNCIL HAS TO DO A BACKGROUND CHECK.
I RECOMMENDED TO DOTY THAT HE GOES THROUGH THE STATE POLICE TO TRY TO GET THE BACKGROUND, CHECK DOWN THROUGH THEM.
NOW, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ADMISSIBLE TO THE METRO COUNCIL THAT COULD BE USED THERE OR NOT, BUT OH, EXCUSE ME.
I THINK IT'S 10 DAYS, IS IT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT UM, WHEN, WHEN I WAS MADE AWARE OF IT THROUGH OUR OWN INVESTIGATION, AS TO WHY, UM, WE THOUGHT SOMETHING WOULD STOP THAT PROCESS.
UM, I CONTACTED ASH ASHLEY BECK, WHICH IS THE COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR AND SHE ALSO WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE NO ONE BECAUSE NO ONE SERGEANT DOZIER, IF HE KNEW IF HE WAS APPRISED OF THE LAW, THIS WOULD'VE NEVER HAPPENED.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST LIKE, LIKE YOU SAYING, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE, UH, WHAT THE PENALTY WOULD BE BECAUSE WE ALSO TABLED THE, UH, APPEAL HEARING THAT HAD THAT DIDN'T TAKE PLACE.
SO, UH, IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, THAT WAS MISSED, HE GOT THE PRIVILEGE OF NOT BEING HERE TO ME.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU ASKED ME, DO YOU MIND, UM, FIRST OF ALL, I HAD NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ONE TO INFER OR INSINUATE THAT CHIEF BOB DID ANYTHING INTENTIONALLY.
I DON'T, I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE TO ME IS JUST SIMPLY BLAHS BLACK AND WHITE.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, THE ONLY THING THAT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR YOU GUYS IS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT THIS FOR CHIEF BALL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TIMES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OFFICER, A FIREMAN, SOMEONE ELSE COME BEFORE YOU, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PLEAD IGNORANCE OF SOMETHING.
AND THAT THAT'S ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THEN, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO AFFORD IT TO CHIEF, ALL THAT SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT WORK UNDER THE SAME LAWS.
WELL, I I'M ALSO AFFORDING THAT TO MYSELF BECAUSE I WAS IGNORANT IGNORANT OF IT.
WE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS TO TAKE PLACE AND YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, THE COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR, THEY DIDN'T KNOW EITHER.
I REALLY DO EARLY APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU'VE EVEN ENTERTAINED THIS AND TAKEN MY LETTER, UM, AND UNDER CONSIDERATION.
SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION MOTION, FIRST OF ALL, THE MATTER AS IT RELATES TO REQUEST INVESTIGATION, DISMISS IT, YOU HAVE A MOTION TO DISMISS.
IS THERE A SECOND? IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE A DISMISSAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION GOING ON.
SO IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO UNDERTAKE THE INVESTIGATION OR NOT.
UM, SO YEAH, AND I SUGGEST THAT WE DO NOT BECAUSE WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO.
WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT.
WELL, OF COURSE THE BOARD WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT THAT LAW AND IMPOSED NO OBLIGATION ON THE BOARD OBLIGATION WAS IMPOSED UPON THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND WHAT DELAYED THE METRO COUNCIL FROM EVEN INITIATING A BACKGROUND CHECK WAS THE FACT THAT BASICALLY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FAILED TO CERTIFY THE ELECTION WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME ALLOWED BY LAW.
AND IT ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION, OKAY.
IF THE CHIEF DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, HOW MANY YEARS
[00:25:01]
DOES THE CHIEF HAVE? HE'S GOT THE PARISH ATTORNEY AND HE HAS TO HEAR AT EVERY APPEAL HEARING, HOW MANY MORE DOES HE NEED? SO I, AND I LIEUTENANT BRO, I I'VE KNOWN HER FOR A LONG TIME.I HOPE YOU TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT WHAT YOU'RE SETTING TODAY IS THAT IGNORANCE OF A POLICY SHOULD BE AN OUT FOR AN EMPLOYEE BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IT AGAIN.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A PRECEDENCE, THE BOARD THAT WANTS TO SET, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS BE AN IGNORANCE OR NOTHING.
I'M SIMPLY SAYING, THERE'S NO REASON TO DOING AN INVESTIGATION BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO INVESTIGATE? WE SIMPLY DIRECT THE CHIEF TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND IF THERE'S SOME OTHER PUNISHMENT THAT WE DECIDE ON, THEN WE'LL DO THAT.
BUT I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE JUST IGNORE IT.
WELL THEN I HOPE A REMEDY, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER FOR AN EMPLOYEE IS TO MERELY DIRECT THE EMPLOYEE TO COMPLY WITH POLICY.
AND WE'RE STARTING TO CONFLATE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION THAT SHOWS DECISION RIGHT NOW.
UM, NOW IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS, UM, THE OUT, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SETTING.
IT'S JUST, YOU'VE HEARD LIEUTENANT WIT, UH, YOU KNOW, BRING FORTH HER CONCERN, WHICH WE APPRECIATE.
UM, BUT YOUR DECISION NOW IS ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INVESTIGATION OR NOT THAT THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE DECISION TODAY.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? HEY, JOHN MADE A MOTION AND A SECOND THERE, COULD YOU RESTATE THE MOTION JUNE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INVESTIGATION IT'S BEEN SAID.
WE HAVE FOUND, WE HAVE THE FACTS AND FINDINGS BEEN SECOND BY PRESS AISLE, ALL IN FAVOR.
NOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS JUST AS A COURTESY, I WOULD SEND THE CHIEFS OF BOTH DEPARTMENTS AND EMAIL, YOU KNOW, REMINDING THEM ABOUT THEIR DUTIES UNDER THE LAW AND THAT'LL BE DONE.
AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ORDERS AND STUFF AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
LIKE WE HAD YESTERDAY, THAT'D BE OLDER.
THAT'S NOT ORDERING ME TO DO ANYTHING.
[5. Consider a Request for Investigation by Joel Gouedy ]
SO THAT MOVES US ON TO THE CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY JOEL.UH, WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THIS.
THE LAST TIME I WAS UP HERE AND I GAVE Y'ALL THE PACKET I BROUGHT THAT DAY AND WE'VE, UH, SENT THE PACKET I HAVE HERE TODAY WITH ME BE ALL.
AND IT'S JUST A FEW OTHER THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO HIT ON AS FAR AS AN INVESTIGATION.
AND I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND TELL IT, TELL YOU, SO WE'LL MAKE IT QUICK IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
UM, THIS IS ABOUT THE LAWS NOT BEING FOLLOWED AS FAR AS WITH TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT APPOINTMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, RIGHT? UM, IN THE LAWS, STATE LAWS, STATE THAT IF, IF SOMEBODY, UM, I'M SORRY, JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
IF SOMEBODY, UH, PURPOSELY BREAKS THE, UH, APPOINTMENT AS WHAT WAS GOING AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, WITH PUTTING MR. JOHN MILLER, CAPTAIN JOHN MILLER INTO TRAINING THAT THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THAT.
I BELIEVE WE'VE SENT Y'ALL A TO START WITH A PHONE CALL FROM, UH, KYLE FLINT
[00:30:01]
OR A TEXT FROM CAR FLINT, BACK AND FORTH WITH ME AND, UH, CHIEF STEVENS OF TRAINING.I DON'T KNOW A PISTOL CALLED POWELL FLINT AND TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS A SECRET CALL.
AND IF HE TOLD ANYBODY THAT THE CALL WAS MADE, IF HE DID, IF COPS WENT AND DIDN'T ACCEPT THE OFFER, IF HE TOLD ANYBODY THAT THE CALL WAS MADE, HE WOULD CALL HIM A LIAR TO HIS FACE BECAUSE THE ONLY OTHER PERSON THEY HAD TO PUT IN THAT POSITION WAS MR. UH, JASON WILSON.
AND THEY DIDN'T WANT JASON WILSON IN THAT POSITION.
THEY DIDN'T WANT HIM IN TRAINING.
SO THAT SHOWS DELIBERATE, UM, KNOWLEDGE THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT HE KNEW HE WAS SUPPOSED TO CHOOSE SOMEBODY ELSE OFF OF THE LIST.
AND HE DID NOT, DIDN'T EVEN CALL THE GUY.
DIDN'T OFFER IT TO HIM FOR WHATEVER REASON.
AND THEN JOE, HOW CAN I, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU FOR ONE SECOND? YEAH.
SO THIS TEXT MESSAGE YOU'RE REFERENCING IS DATED APRIL 24TH.
WELL THAT'S, WE CALLED HIM APRIL 24TH TO ACT, TO ASK HIM ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE AND THEN CALLED HIM, TEXTED HIM AND THEN MY, ME AND HIM JUST TEXTS BACK AND FORTH.
SO HE WAS JUST SITTING THERE TELLING ME WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
THEY DIDN'T PUT ANYBODY IN THERE UNTIL AUGUST 15 OR 16 ON YOUR PAPERWORK.
WE JUST GET THE INFORMATION FROM HIM.
IS HE HERE? NO, WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WEREN'T, UH, SUPPOSED TO BRING WITNESSES.
UM, ALSO, YOU KNOW, THAT SHOWS, THAT SHOWS A WILLINGNESS TO CIRCUMVENT THAT LAW.
WHEN COREY RTT STEPPED OUT OF TRAINING AGAIN, HE TOLD HIM THE SAME THING ABOUT THE CONVERSATION AND POWELL, FLINT TOLD HIM, WELL, IF IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS, I WOULD PREFER NOT TO BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GO TO SCHOOL AND ALL HE SAID, BUT IT WAS GOING TO BE FOR LONGER THAN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
WELL, HE DIDN'T CALL HIM BACK, BUT HE GOT IN TOUCH WITH MR. MILLER AND PUT HIM IN TRAINING.
HE JUST GRABBED HIM OUT OF THIN AIR AND PUT HIM ON, PUT HIM IN TRAINING.
AND THE, THE, THE RULES STATE THAT IF THE B THE APPOINTED, IF THE APPOINTMENT IS OFFERED TO EVERYBODY ON THE LIST, THE ELIGIBLE, THE ELIGIBILITY LIST, AND NOBODY REALLY ACCEPTED, THEN IT GOES TO THE SENIOR MAN.
UH, UH, UH, FOR, I BELIEVE IN AND FOR THE CAPTAIN.
AND IT GOES DOWN FROM THERE UNTIL THEY FIND SOMEBODY TO PICK THAT, TO TAKES THAT APPOINTMENT.
AND MR. MILLER WAS 143 ON THE SENIORITY LIST AT THAT TIME.
AND YOUR, UH, THE FILE THAT YOU GAVE US LAST MONTH, THIS LETTER TO BRANDON.
SO ON AUGUST 14TH, WHICH THE DATES CONFLICT WITH THE LETTER THAT YOU SENT, UH, SAYS ON AUGUST 16TH, THAT CHIEF STEVENS ANNOUNCED IN A TRAINING DIVISION THAT JOHN MILLER WAS COMING INTO TRAINING AS SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT FOR PEDRO LEONARD STARTING AUGUST 17.
UH, COREY ARTINA STEPPED DOWN FROM THE POSITION IN SEPTEMBER 8TH, THE NEXT MONTH.
UM, SO HE, BUT HE SAID THAT HE BROUGHT JOHN MILLER, ARIANA ON PEDRO, PEDRO WAS OUT, HE WAS ON MILITARY LEAVE.
HE WAS A SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT, HELPING OUT WITH A TRAINING CLASS THAT WAS GOING ON, RIGHT? YES.
UH, BUT YEAH, HE WAS, HE WAS SUBSTITUTING FOR, UH, PEDRO LEONARD CAUSE HE WAS OUT ON, UH, SO YOU SAID THAT, OH, AFTER SEPTEMBER, WHENEVER,
[00:35:01]
UH, COREY OR TITA STEPPED DOWN, THAT THEY DID CALL KYLE FLYNN AGAIN AND OFFERED HIM A POSITION IN TRAINING.THEY, THEY OFFERED HIM A POSITION IN TRAINING AND THAT WAS, UH, ANY TEST SAID NO TO THAT ONE ALSO.
THEY DIDN'T OFFER HIM A POSITION AFTER COREY STEPPED OUT.
OR DID THEY? THAT'S WHAT I THINK THAT, NO, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T, IT WOULDN'T ENDURE ANOTHER TEST.
I WAS CLARIFYING AND I SAY, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
UH, AND THEN AS OF SPOTIFY, MY DATES FOR THE TESTING, BECAUSE THEY HAD CHIEF MILLER IN THERE FOR THREE OR FOUR MONTHS, THEN THEY GAVE ANOTHER, UH, TEST ANOTHER, UH, TRAINING OFFICER TEST.
THEY LET HIM TAKE THAT TEST THAT HE WOULD BE ON THE LIST.
AND THAT WAY THEY COULD HIRE HIM INTO THAT POSITION.
BUT, UH, THE, THE LAW OR THE RULES, HAVE YOU WANT TO SAY IT WERE BROKEN WHEN THEY PUT HIM IN THERE ORIGINALLY, BECAUSE THERE WAS A WORKING LIST.
HE WASN'T ON IT AND THEY DIDN'T OFFER IT TO THE MAN THAT WAS ON THAT WORKING LIST.
THEY DO HAVE 60 DAYS TO FILL A POSITION.
HE WAS IN THERE FOR FOUR MONTHS.
WHO WAS IN IT WAS HE VACATED IT ON SEPTEMBER 18TH OR SEPTEMBER 8TH.
JOHN MILLER WAS IN THERE FOR FOUR MONTHS.
MILLER WAS IN EL SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT FOR PEDRO.
WELL HE COULD STILL BE IN THERE FOR SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT UNTIL, UNTIL HE COMES BACK.
NOW WE'LL SAY WHAT I DID FIND WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T COME BEFORE THE BOARD HAD ASKED FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION EVERY TIME THAT'S THE ONLY FINDING I FOUND THEY DIDN'T COME TO Y'ALL ORIGINALLY WITH IT.
THEY DIDN'T, THERE WAS A FINDING THAT THE PAS WERE NOT DONE CORRECTLY.
AND IT HAS SINCE THEN BEEN CORRECTED.
BUT IT JUST DIDN'T THEY SITTING SOLELY ABOUT THE, THE, UH, PAS.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WELL, THEY DID, THEY DIDN'T COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND WITHIN 15 DAYS AND ASKED FOR THE SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR THE EXTENSION AND THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR THE EXTENSION OVERSIGHT ON THE PAST ADMINISTRATION.
I'M TRYING TO DO THIS AS YOU READ.
AND SO, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH STUFF THAT I WENT OVER AND WHAT I DID FIND, RIGHT? UH, SHARON, COULD YOU COME UP HERE PLEASE? IN A WHILE SHE'S COMING, REMEMBER THIS IS JUST TO GIVE THE BOARD AN OVERVIEW OF WHY THEY SHOULD DO THE INVESTIGATION.
SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE PRESENTATION OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
WELL, FIRST AND FOREMOST, UM, THERE WAS AN INTERNAL AUDIT THAT WAS DONE AND THAT INTERNAL AUDIT RESULTS FROM THE CITY PARISHES OFFICE CAME BACK WITH.
AND SHE PUT IN THERE AND WE ACTUALLY DID A POSITION PAPER.
AND ON THERE IT SHOWS EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM THAT WAS BROKEN.
THEY DIDN'T GO OFF OF A WORKING LIST.
NO, THEY DID NOT GO OFF THE WORKING LIST.
WHEN THEY PUT JOHN MILLER IN THERE, THERE WAS TWO, THERE WAS TWO CANDIDATES ON THE LIST.
THERE WAS KYLE FLINT ON THE LIST AND THAT WAS JASON WILSON ON THE LIST.
THEN IN THE NOTE, KYLE FLINT REFUSED IT WAY BEFORE AUGUST.
IF YOU THAT'S THE WHOLE THING, WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO CALL ANY WITNESSES.
HE WAS OFFERED THAT BACK IN APRIL, WHEN, UM, PEDRO FIRST WENT ON MILITARY LEAVE, HE WAS OFFERED THAT IT WAS FOR TWO OR THREE WEEKS.
HE SAID, NO, HE SAID, BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE LONGER AND PEDRO'S MILITARY LEAVE KEPT GETTING EXTENDED.
THEY NEVER CAME BACK TO HIM, BUT, BUT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO.
THEY ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED TO COME IN AND SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT FOR
[00:40:01]
PEDRO'S OUT ON MILITARY LEAVE.HE SAID THAT THEY NEVER, THEY NEVER REQUIRED HIM TO ENGAGE AND LIVE IN.
AND HE NEVER, THEY DIDN'T FILL THE POSITION UNTIL AUGUST.
THE WORKING LIST, PAD, JASON WILSON'S NAME ON IT.
THEY SHOULD HAVE OFFERED IT TO HIM.
AND IF HE DIDN'T WANT IT, REFUSE IT IN WRITING, THEY DIDN'T DO, IT WAS JUST PUT IN THE HATCHBACK ON ALL THIS 14TH OR 15TH, BUT THEY NEVER OFFERED IT BEFORE THAT HE WAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS COMING IN AND TRAINING THAT SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT FOR PEDRO ON AUGUST 17TH.
BUT IF YOU THAT'S, AGAIN, IF YOU INVESTIGATE THIS, LET'S PUT IN THE HAZMAT ON AUGUST 15TH.
BUT IF YOU INVESTIGATE IT, THEY WERE MAKING PHONE CALLS TO JOHN MILLER WAY BEFORE HE GOT PUT INTO HAZMAT, WHO IS THE I'M SORRY, THE, UH, ASSISTANT CHIEF AND THE CHIEF OF TRAINING.
DID HE GO IN THERE? I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I COULD GO UP.
THEY COULD THINK OF SAY THEY WAS CALLING HIM, TELLING HIM HE WAS GOING TO GET THE JOB OR NOT.
WELL AGAIN, THEN THEY HAD, THEY HAVE A SENIORITY LIST WITH A HUNDRED HE'S NUMBER 1 43 ON THE SENIORITY TO FOLLOW A SENIORITY LIST.
ONCE A WORKING TEST HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED.
YES, THERE IS WHAT WORK IN WAS WASN'T THE DOLPHIN.
WHEN YOU SAY IN THERE WAS A T A WORKING TEST FOR TRADING OFFICER.
YES, THERE WAS A COW AND, UH, WILSON.
KYLE WAS CALLED AND REFUSED TO COME IN THERE.
SO THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS IT ON THE TEST.
JASON DIDN'T JASON DIDN'T GO INTO HAZMAT UNTIL AUGUST 15TH.
JOHN MILLER WOULDN'T PUT INTO TRAINING UNTIL AUGUST 17TH.
NO, ACTUALLY IT WAS, UM, HE, HE, THERE WAS A MEETING WITH THE TRAINING DIVISION AND JOHN MILLER THAT WAS ON THE 14TH OF AUGUST.
AND AT THAT POINT THEY HAD ALREADY MADE A DECISION THAT JOHN MILLER WAS COMING IN THERE.
THEY DID NOT GO MAN BY MAN OFFICE SENIORITY LIST AND OFFER AND HAVE IT TURNED DOWN.
HE CAN SAY HE ANNOUNCED IT ON THE 14TH.
BUT AS PAS SAID, THE 17TH, THAT WAS THE NEXT MONDAY.
WELL, AGAIN, ALL, ALL THAT HE IS ASKING IS THE BOARD LOOK INTO THIS AND INVESTIGATE IT.
INSTEAD OF SITTING HERE, ARGUING BACK AND FORTH, I'M TELLING YOU, I DID LOOK INTO IT.
AND THIS WAS MY, THAT WAS MY FILINGS.
THAT THE ONLY THING I FOUND WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T COME AND ANNOUNCE OR REPORT TO THE BOARD THAT THEY WERE PUTTING JOHN MILLER DOWN SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT.
SO THIS LADY THAT, UH, BARBARA THAT DID THE AUDIT, SHE WAS COMPLETELY WRONG.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US.
NO, NO, I'M NOT THE PAF WASN'T CREATED.
SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT IN LIEU OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES.
SHE FOUND THAT THAT YOUR PERSON WAS IN THERE FOR 4.5 MONTHS.
SHE SAID THAT, THAT THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE IN THERE.
THEN HE WAS PUT IN PERMANENT APPOINTMENT IN LIEU OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES.
HE WAS DONE THAT HE WAS PUT IN THERE PERMANENT APPOINTMENT AFTER A WORKING TEST, WHICH CAME OUT NOVEMBER 23RD, BUT THERE WAS ALREADY A WORKING TEST WHEN COREY RT TO LEFT.
HE WASN'T PUT IN THERE UNTIL JANUARY 1ST CHAPTER TO WORK.
IF YOU, YOU ALREADY HAVE AN INTERNAL AUDIT WAS DONE, WHY WOULD IT BE A NEED FOR INVESTIGATION? UM, BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
IT'S BASED UPON, WELL, CAN I GET THE, WHEN, SO THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T FEEL BASED UPON THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION THAT WAS DONE, THAT THEY'RE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
SO YOU'RE REQUESTING ANOTHER INVESTIGATION.
SO ABOUT THEIR RESPONSE TO THE INTERNAL AUDITOR, CORRECT.
AND WHEN YOU SAY THE WHOLE SITUATION IS THAT THE JASON WILSON DEAL THAT ALSO? YES.
AND YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT IF THEY FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THE, OR WHAT THEY FOUND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AUDITOR ACTUALLY WAS THE PERSON THAT TOOK THE, UM, PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT IN LIEU OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES.
[00:45:01]
UM, THE PENALTY OF THE VIOLATION OF STATUTE, UH, 33, 25 0 3 OR 33, 24 96 WAS A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500.AND FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS, THE PERSON WILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT.
THAT WAS HER CLASSIFIED SERVICE.
THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS, CORRECT.
THEN THAT RIGHT ABOVE THAT, ON HER INTERNAL AUDIT, SHE RECOMMENDS YOU HAVE THAT HERE.
AND YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S YOUR BEST FOLLOW THAT RECOMMEND? WELL, I, IN DEFENSE OF MICHAEL KIMBALL, HE CAME INTO THIS POSITION AND THIS HAD ALREADY HAPPENED.
AND WE KNOW THAT HE QUOTE UNQUOTE HAS BEEN WORKING ON STUFF BECAUSE HE SAID THAT, BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME HE'S TAKEN IT TO, UM, LET'S SEE HIS, HIS CHIEF OF TRAINING.
JOHN MILLER KNEW ABOUT IT IN A MEETING.
HE WAS GOING IN THERE ILLEGALLY.
AND, UM, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE INTERIM CHIEF WHEN HE WAS THERE, CHAD MAJOR.
AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO T CHIEF SMITH WHEN HE WAS THERE AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING.
UH, HAVE THERE BEEN A RESPONSE AT ANY OF ANY TYPE BY YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS THAT ARE MENTIONED? YES, SIR.
AND JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE MY ATTORNEY, MS.
AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO ME.
BUT STONE, UM, I BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO MR. GOWDY AND THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO MS. DAWN PARTICIPATING VIA.
IS THERE AN OBJECTION TO MS. DON? YES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON THE RECORD.
GOOD MORNING AND DONKEY ON BEHALF OF THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT.
AND GAMBLE'S HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
I HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AUDITORS AND CAN CLARIFY SOME OF THE ALLEGED CONCLUSIONS, UH, THAT WERE STATED BY THE GALLEYS, BUT I WILL LEAVE THE CHIEF TO RESPOND FIRST AND THEN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
UM, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU.
SO YOU HAVE SOME FACTS, A TIMELINE THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER OF EVERYTHING SINCE ITS, UH, EVENT TOOK PLACE.
SO AS YOU HAVE, NO, I GOT APPOINTED HIS POSITION DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
SO I'VE GOTTEN THIS, UH, BROUGHT TO ME AS HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
SO IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.
I LOOKED INTO IT FROM WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD FROM DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS THROUGH THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND I, I PURPOSELY MADE SURE THAT I DID WHAT WAS CORRECT FOR THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BENEFIT OF THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT WORK THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY TO MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW THE PROPER STEPS TO MOVE FORWARD.
I TALKED TO BOTH MR. FLYNN AND MR. WILSON AND WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF WHAT HAPPENED.
MR. FLINT STATED THAT HE WAS IN THERE.
HE WENT OUT DUE TO SOME ABSENCES OF PEOPLE BEING OUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, SICK, INJURED, MILITARY LEAVE.
UM, THEY OFFERED A POSITION TO COME BACK IN.
MR. FLINT DECLINED THE POSITION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY COULD NOT TELL HIM HOW LONG HE WAS GOING TO BE IN THERE.
MR. WILSON DID NOT WANT THE POSITION.
HE TOOK EVERY TEST WITHIN THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE THE TEST.
HE HAD NO DESIRE TO BECOME A TRAINING OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE.
HE, UM, SO HE DID NOT WANT, AND THAT WAS KNOWN.
SO MOVING FORWARD, THEY NEEDED SOME HELP DUE TO PEOPLE BEING OUT.
AND WE HAD A ROOKIE SCHOOL GOING ON.
THEY REACHED OUT TO AN INDIVIDUAL WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT THAT, UH, HE SHOWED THAT HE HAD A DESIRE TO COME HELP.
UH, HE HAS A STINT OF BACKGROUND TEACHING AT LSU FIREMAN TRAINING ACADEMY.
HE COME IN ON THE SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT.
[00:50:01]
LONGER THAN THEY THOUGHT.IF YOU REMEMBER, THIS WAS DURING MIDDLE OF COVID.
ONE OF OUR GUYS WAS OUT ON MILITARY LEAVE DURING THE COVID OPERATION.
DIDN'T KNOW WHEN HE WAS COMING BACK.
SO IT DID THE EXTENT LONGER THAN WHAT THEY THOUGHT, THE TRAINING DIVISION AND LET IT BE KNOWN TO YOU, STEVE, AS THE CHIEF HEINZ OR THE CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE TRAINING DIVISION, THEY CAN TALK TO WHO THEY WANT AT THE END OF THE DAY.
I'M THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY I'LL MAKE THE DECISION.
OR AT THE TIME CHIEF SMITH GETS THE POINT WHO GOES IN THERE.
THEY CAN HAVE ALL THE CONVERSATIONS THEY WANT.
DID THAT MAKE SENSE? UM, SO YEAH, HE WAS ON SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT.
THEY LEFT HIM IN THERE A LITTLE LONGER, BUT AGAIN, IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID, WHAT CAN WE CONTROL? UM, THEY DID EVERYTHING BY THE WAY THAT I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
UM, THEY SAID THEY, THE TEST WAS GIVEN.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIMELINE, NOBODY KNEW THAT MR. ARTEAGA WAS GOING TO STEP DOWN.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOY AT THE TIMELINE RIDES, WHEN THEY CALL IT FOR THE TEST, AGAIN, COVID TEST WAS REQUESTED ALONG WITH OTHER TESTS.
IT WAS NOT GIVEN WITHIN THE AMOUNT OF TIME DUE TO THE STRAINS ON OFFICERS, STATE, EXAMINERS OFFICE, GIVEN TEST ACROSS THE STATE DURING THE COVID.
THAT WAS SOME OF THE DELAY IN THAT HAPPENED.
SO I FEEL THAT THE RIGHT THING WAS DONE.
WE KNOW THAT WE'VE MADE SOME MISTAKES ON THE DOCUMENTATION OF WHEN A PERSON TURNS DOWN A POSITION, GETTING TO SIGN OFF ON THAT AND SAYING THEY DECLINE IT.
UM, SINCE I'VE TAKEN OVER THAT OFFICE PRIOR TO THIS EVER COMING UP, WE HAVE STARTED THAT PROCEDURE WITHIN THE BANISH FIRE DEPARTMENT.
NOT OFTEN DOES THAT HAPPEN IN A COMPETITIVE POSITION WHERE SOMEBODY TURNS IT DOWN THAT DON'T HAPPEN OFTEN, BUT WE HAVE STARTED THAT PROCESS TO MAKE SURE WE DO THAT CORRECTLY.
SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND WITH IT.
ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.
SO, WELL, SO ALL WE ARE, WE, UM, ACCEPTING THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF POLICY.
IT LOOKS LIKE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN OVERSIGHT ABOUT, OF PAST ADMINISTRATION.
THIS HAPPENED IN, UH, AUGUST 20, 22.
HE WAS DEALING WITH CHIEF UP UNTIL WHAT MAY.
AND ONLY OVERSIGHT WAS WE'D LEFT HIM IN THERE WITHOUT COMING BACK ASKING FOR, BUT HE WAS NO SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT.
AND HE DIDN'T COME INITIALLY THOSE TWO THINGS, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
YEAH, BUT THAT WAS JUST FOR THE SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT FOR HIM TO PROCEED THE POSITION OF A PERMANENT CLASSIFIED, CLASSIFIED POSITION THAT WAS DONE TO THE T.
HE TOOK THE TEST, MADE THE HIGH SCORE ON THE TEST AND THE DIVISION AND WITH THE FIRE CHIEF'S APPROVAL APPOINTED JOHN MILLER TO THE DIVISION OF TRAINING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THE SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT WAS THE ONLY AREA THAT THEY, THEY, THEY STEERED AWAY FROM MAKING A MISTAKE ON THE LAST AMOUNT OF, AND THE LENGTH OF THE TEST.
BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS DURING COVID WHO, WHO COULD CONTROL THAT? I MEAN, WE, WE CALL FOR THE TEST ON TIME DUE TO THE BACKFILL OF STATE OF EXAMINERS OFFICE.
THEY HAD A LOT GOING ON TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYBODY IN THE STATE WITH THE, UH, COMMENDATIONS WE HAD TO REQUIRE.
AND THEN I SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD FROM MR. GALLEY, BUT HER GRANDMOTHER HE'S SEEKING OTHER THAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOING FORWARD.
IS THAT THE RELIEF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THIS, THE GUY, I APOLOGIZE.
UH, AND, AND CHIEF KIMBALL, AS WELL AS THE BOARD HERE GOT, YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE EFFORTS BEING MADE TO FOLLOW THE THINGS THAT WEREN'T FOLLOWED IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, BUT I LOVE MY JOB AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I WANT TO SEE IT RAN RIGHT NOW.
I KNOW CHIEF CAMPBELL JUST GOT IN THERE.
UH, BUT I JUST, I JUST THINK THE WHOLE SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT THING WAS DONE COMPLETELY WRONG.
THEY DIDN'T COME, BUT BEFORE Y'ALL FOR THE 30 DAYS THEY LEFT.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, AFTER THE 60 DAYS, UM,
[00:55:01]
I, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO TOUCH YOU OFF, BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS WHAT REMEDY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR JUST TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOW THE RULES FROM NOW ON? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A REMEDY WHERE THERE'S SOME DISCIPLINE APPLIED TO THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION? NO, NO, NOT TO THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION.UH, BUT WE, WE DO HAVE A MAN WHO, UH, WILLINGFULLY WILLINGFULLY DID NOT FOLLOW HIS WORKING LISTS.
AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS, UH, SOME SOMETHING DONE OH, WELL WITH, WITH THE, UH, PLACEMENT OF MR. MILLER.
UM, AND IT'S NOT ABOUT ME AND HIM, IT'S ABOUT THE LAWS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, FOR SO LONG, THE DEPARTMENT DOES HOW THEY WANT AND, AND THE LAWS AREN'T FOLLOWED AND, AND, AND, AND NOBODY, NOBODY EVER.
SO ARE YOU ASKING THAT MR. MILLER TO BE REMOVED FROM THE POSITION? HE, HE CAN'T, WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT REMEDY HE SEEKING.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GETTING IT RIGHT NOW, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHEN IT WASN'T.
ARE YOU ASKING, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD AND GETTING THINGS DONE CORRECTLY, NOW YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE FOR WHAT HAPPENED AND SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNTABLE FOR.
BECAUSE, UH, AND I KNOW, UH, SOME PEOPLE DON'T THINK THAT THAT, THAT, THAT, UH, FOLLOWING RULES AND REGULATIONS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT BIG OF A DEAL, BUT IT IS.
AND ALSO SOME OF THESE THINGS GOING ON WITH THE PAPERWORK AND SUCH THAT KEEPS Y'ALL FROM BEING ABLE TO DO YOUR JOB CORRECTLY.
CAUSE IF PEOPLE CALL UP ASKING, YOU KNOW, FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION ON SOMETHING AND Y'ALL DON'T HAVE IT, CAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T TURN IT IN.
IT'S STILL THAT THAT HAS SINCE BEEN RECTIFIED.
I MEAN, MS. PENNY CAN ATTEST TO US TRYING TO GET THE PAF IN RIGHT.
IN A TIMELY MANNER AND INFORMATION AT THE TIME WE DID.
AND THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN AUDIT.
AND SINCE THEN THE OLD ADMINISTRATION CORRECT, STARTED CORRECTLY, BUT CHIEF KIMBALL HAS DEFINITELY CORRECTED AND IT STAYED ON TOP OF IT.
I'M NOT ARGUING THAT POINT, NOT ARGUING THAT POINT, BUT LOUISIANA LAW WAS BROKEN IN THE WAY THAT MR. MILLER WAS PUT IN TO THAT POSITION.
AND THAT'S FROM THE AUDIT, THE AUDITOR.
SO IF SHE'S WRONG, I GUESS, UH, 28 YEARS THAT SHE'S WORKED FOR THE CITY, SHE HASN'T KNOWN HER JOB.
UH, I'M NOT CALLING SAYING SHE'S WRONG.
HER, WHAT SHE FOUND WAS CORRECT.
THAT WAS A LAW PRESCRIBED A PENALTY FOR THAT ACTION.
WHAT IS THAT PENALTY? THE PENALTY IS IF, UH, UH, IS A MAXIMUM OF $500, FIVE A MINIMUM ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, I'M SORRY.
UH, YOU LOSE YOUR POSITION AND YOU CANNOT TAKE A TEST.
NO, YOU CANNOT SERVE IN ANY CLASS, BUT SERVICE AT A FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR SIX YEARS.
AND YOU CAN'T TAKE A TEST TOO.
I MEAN, YOU CAN THEY FIRE YOU? YEAH.
YOU CAN'T SERVE IN ANY CLASSIFIED SIR ANYMORE OR IN THE FIRE SERVICE PERIOD IN THE STATE.
WHO BROKE THAT RULE? SO WE APPLY THE WRONG.
SO LISTEN, AND MY OPINION, I FEEL LIKE CHIEF OF TRAINING BROKE THE ROOF CHIEF OF TRAINING.
THE CHIEF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PUT IT IN THERE.
AND THE CHIEF IS THE CHIEF HAS RETIRED, ACTUALLY SAYS WILLFUL.
SO JOHN MILLER KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO GO IN THERE.
Y'ALL DID NOT FOLLOW THE SENIORITY LIST.
JOHN MILLER WILLFULLY WENT IN THERE FIRST OFF.
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY IN THE INTERNAL AUDIT.
SHE SPECIFIES WHAT THE PENALTY IS.
SO JOHN MILLER IS THE ONE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO STEAL.
WE WOULD LIKE THE AUDIT THAT WAS DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL, NOT ONLY FOLLOWED, BUT WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS
[01:00:01]
ARE THAT FOLLOWED ALSO.DON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THIS? OH NO, I'M HERE.
UM, I WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAVE SPOKEN IN DETAIL WITH THE AUDIT AUDITORS ON MANY OCCASIONS AND THE CHIEF HAS SPOKEN IN DETAIL WITH AUDITORS.
THE AUDIT DID NOT SPECIFY THAT SHE FOUND ANY WILLFUL VIOLATION THEY DID, AS THEY ALWAYS DO PUT THE PENALTIES IN THERE, BUT THAT IS A PENALTY FOR A WILLFUL VIOLATION.
AND THERE DEFINITELY WAS NO WILLFUL VIOLATION FOUND ON BEHALF OF MR. MILLER.
HE WASN'T THE ONE PROCESS AND THE PAPERWORK OR MAKING THE DECISIONS, OR IN FACT, DETERMINING WHEN HE WOULD BE PLACED IN THERE.
AND HE WASN'T THE ONE WHO SPOKE TO THE, TO THE OTHER FIREFIGHTERS WHO REFUSED THE APPOINTMENT, UH, THE AUDITORS OR PLEASED WITH THE CONVERSATIONS THEY'VE HAD WITH THE CHIEF.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THE PAPERWORK ISSUE WAS THE PRIMARY PROBLEM.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE AUDIT, IT FOCUSES ON THE PAPERWORK.
THERE WERE ERRORS IN THE PAPERWORK, THE CHEAPEST DETERMINED THAT HE HAS CHANGED, WHO HANDLES THE PAPERWORK AND THAT IS CORRECTED.
UH, THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS WE GOT COME INTO THE BOARD WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE, UH, HE UNDERSTANDS THAT'S IMPORTANT AND WE'LL MAKE SURE HE'S DONE THAT.
UH, THERE WERE SOME PERSONAL ACTION FORMS THAT WERE PUT INTO SERVICE.
WE CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WENT TO THE BOARD, BUT WE KNOW THAT AT LEAST THE ONE FOR THE PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT WAS DONE CORRECTLY, PUT INTO MUNIS AND PUT INTO, UH, THE HR SYSTEM.
SO ALL OF THOSE AREAS HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT BY BOTH THE AUDITORS, AS WELL AS THE CURRENT CHAIN, HE HAS MADE THE CHANGES THAT HE'S MADE TO MAKE.
AND I THINK WE'VE DETERMINED WHAT THE ERRORS WERE AND HE'S DEDICATED TO NOT HAVING THAT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
UM, BECAUSE OF THAT, WE SIMPLY DON'T THINK THAT AN INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY AND THERE'S NO JUST CAUSE FOR IT.
THERE'S BEEN AN INVESTIGATION AND IT'S BEEN DETERMINED.
WHAT WERE THE PROBLEMS AND THE CHEAPEST FIXED WHAT HE, AND HE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE IT'S HANDLED PROPERLY.
IF Y'ALL HAVE A QUESTION FOR ME, I CAN'T ALWAYS HEAR WHAT Y'ALL WAS SAYING.
I COULD HEAR THE PERSON SPEAKING LIKE MR. GALLEY OR THE CHIEF, BUT I CAN'T ALWAYS HEAR THE BOARD.
SO SOMEONE MAY NEED ONE OF THEM MAYBE TO REPEAT A QUESTION IF YOU HAVE FOR ME.
BUT, AND I GUESS MR. GADDY, I DROVE BACK TO MY ORIGINAL CARSON AND THAT IS THE REMEDY THAT YOU SEEKING.
IS IT SUFFICIENT FOR THIS BOY TO SIMPLY DIRECT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS IT RELATES TO THESE TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS? WILL THAT SATISFY YOU? OR DO YOU WANT SOMETHING MORE? BUT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WHEN MY WIFE CAME UP, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE AUDIT AND FOR THE AUDIT TO BE FOLLOWED AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE FOLLOWED.
AND WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE YARD? THE AUDIT WAS IF, IF THE WALL WAS WILLINGLY BROKE, THAT IT'S, UH, UH, UH, MINIMUM FINE.
UH, AND YOU REMOVED FROM YOUR POSITION AND YOU CAN'T TAKE A TEST TO GET BACK INTO, UH, CLASSIFIED SERVICE FOR SIX YEARS.
BUT, BUT MR. MILLER DIDN'T WILLFULLY DO ANYTHING.
IF ANYBODY WILLFULLY DID SOMETHING, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CHIEF AND HE IS RETIRED.
SO HOW DO WE RETROACTIVELY AND THE CHIEF DOPE CHIEF SMITH'S DEFENSE? I DON'T THINK HE WILLFULLY, WELL, I DON'T THINK SO EITHER, BUT I'M SAYING IF HE DID, YEAH.
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT AFTER THE FACT? I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I KEEP ASKING HIM IF IT'S, IF IT'S A REMEDY IT'S SUFFICIENT AND WE SIMPLY DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO FOLLOW THEM OFF FROM HERE ON OUT.
SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON, WELL, I DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE TO GO.
I JUST ON, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE PEOPLE WHO BROKE THE LAW OR HAVE BEEN LIKE YOU WEREN'T REMEDY FOR THAT, WHOEVER DID, WHAT
[01:05:01]
DID WRONG, THAT THERE'S SOME CAUSE ACTION TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT DID THE WRONGDOING.UM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON THAT, BUT I WANT TO KNOW, ARE THE PEOPLE OR A PERSON THAT WILLFULLY OR BROKE THOUGH IN FACTS THAT YOU HAVE THAT BROKE THE, I BROKE THE RULES.
ARE THEY STILL EMPLOYED? WELL, AND THAT'S, THAT ACTUALLY IS WHAT JOEL IS ASKING IS THAT Y'ALL INVESTIGATE THAT TO FIND OUT.
WAS IT WILLFUL OR NOT WILLFUL JOHN? I APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION OF YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS, BUT UNTIL YOU INVESTIGATE IT, WAS IT OR WASN'T IT.
AND THAT'S WHY HE'S ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION.
FROM THE, FROM THE FACTS THAT, THAT MICHAEL, THE CHIEF HAS PRESENTED THAT DAWN HAS PRESENTED, HOW DO WE FIX IT? THE ONLY THING THEY DIDN'T DO WAS THE PAS.
AND THEY DID, THEY OFFERED A TERRIFY ON THE LIST.
I MEAN, I LOOKED AT THIS INVESTIGATE.
I HAVE TO DID THEY? BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF IT.
THERE WAS NOTHING IN WRITING UNTIL YOU SUBPOENAED A WITNESS, WHICH, WHICH WE NOW, WHICH WE WERE TOLD WE COULD NOT HAVE WITNESSES HERE.
SO UNTIL YOU SUBPOENA A WITNESS AND ASK THEM, WERE YOU OFFERED IT OR NOT OFFERED IT AS KYLE MYSELF UNDER, UNDER OATH? NO.
I MEAN, PERSONALLY, AGAIN, IF YOU INVESTIGATE IT, YOU HAVE WITNESSES UNDER OATH.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO.
THERE IS NOT, HOW DO I SAY THIS? YEAH.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN INVESTIGATION.
THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DONE.
THERE WAS NO WILLFUL VIOLATION.
THE ONLY WILLFUL THING THAT WAS WILLFUL OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW THE PDF WAS NOT CREATED.
SO THERE WAS NO FACTS THAT THEY OFFERED THE JOB TO.
CHIEF CAMPBELL WAS SUPPOSED TO BOTH OF THEM.
AND I JUST THINK, I DON'T THINK THERE THERE'S NO, THERE, THERE, OH, I WOULD PROBABLY FASHION.
SO AGAIN, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT YOU GUYS DETERMINE IF THERE'S JUST CAUSE FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND THERE IS NO, JUST CAUSE, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION THAT SHE MADE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THERE'S NO JUST CALLS FOR THE INVESTIGATION.
HOW SECOND THERE? MOTION BY JOHN SECOND BY PRESS ALL IN FAVOR.
[6. Discuss Board Investigations. ]
ITEM SIX.UM, WHICH IS THE, UM, BOARD INVESTIGATION DISCUSS BOARD INVESTIGATIONS.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO TABLE THAT BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NOT HERE TALKING TO DOUG, JOHN DOSSIER.
UH, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE ITEM SIX, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ISSUES SURROUNDING BOARD SECRETARY.
HOW TO CONDUCT OR, UM, IT'S A, IT'S A QUESTION.
SO, UH, THE NEXT MEETING ON THE 21ST, JUNE 21ST.
SO, UM, I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE.
IT IS THERE A SECOND, SO I CAN THAN SHARON, UM, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
UH, ITEM SEVEN HAS BEEN, UH, STRUCK.
[8. Discuss and/or Consider issues surrounding Board Secretary. ]
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM EIGHT IS DISCUSSED AND OR CONSIDER ISSUES SURROUNDING THE BOARD SECRETARY.RIGHT? UM, MAYBE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
MAYBE WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
DURING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.
IT WAS PAINTED FOR DISCUSSION.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE, AND THE DISCUSSION WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND PASS A MOTION, UH, AND THEN GET THAT DONE.
AND THEN WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMONWELL.
ARE YOU SET UP YOUR DECISION? WELL, I LIVE NEAR THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING
[01:10:02]
UNTIL YOU HEAR MY COMMENTS.ARE YOU SET ON YOUR DECISION WITHOUT MY COMMENTS? UM, GIVE HER THE PUBLIC COMMENT STUFF.
WELL THAT'S WHERE I WAS ASKING.
DO WE HAVE TO FALL THROUGH? NO.
SO BASICALLY YOU, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, Y'ALL DON'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION GIVING HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON IT AND THEN Y'ALL CAN VOTE ON IT.
SO, UH, YOU CAN HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
I'D LIKE TO LET THE BOARD KNOW AND LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT'S WATCHING AS WELL AS OUR MEMBERS HERE IN THE, UH, IN THE COUNCIL THAT, UM, MY JOB IS VERY STRENUOUS AND STRESSFUL AT TIMES, WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU WHY, AND I WANT YOU TO GO INTO DETAIL AND I WANT YOU TO BE VERY CLEAR AS TO WHY, BECAUSE WHAT I'VE UNDERGONE AND WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN MY MEDICAL LETTER HERE FROM MY ENDOCRINOLOGIST OUTLINES, MY WORK ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED DRASTICALLY IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, ALYSSA, I'M WAITING FOR AN ANSWER AS TO WHY YOU'RE FEEL ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE AND YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T DEFINE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE IN THE LENGTH OF IT.
THEY ADMIT IN THE, UH, THE ITEMS OR THAT WE SAID WERE INSUBORDINATION AND WORK PERFORMANCE, AND THEY WILL BE DETAILED IN YOUR WELL IN THE LETTER.
WE'LL ADDRESS THEM IN THE LETTER.
WHEN YOU SAY IN SUBORDINATION, I FOLLOW MY GUIDELINES PER THE OSC OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER TO THE MAX.
THAT IS WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKED TO FOLLOW BY THE PREVIOUS BOARD CHAIRMAN AND MR. JOHN SMITH, THE HANDBOOK OR THE SECRETARIES TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARDS PUT TOGETHER BY THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER.
WE WILL END LENGTH DESCRIBE THE DETAILED INCIDENTS OF INSUBORDINATION AND WORK PERFORMANCE.
THAT'S IN LINE WITH CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND IN ALIGNMENT WITH MY, UH, OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER REQUIREMENTS AND THE DIRECTORS THAT WERE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE BOARD CHAIR.
ARE THEY IN ALIGNMENT WITH CIVIL SERVICE LAW? YOU'RE NOT PROTECTED ON OUR CIVIL SERVICE LAW, BUT I'M NOT A SITTING DUCK EITHER.
NOBODY SAID YOU WERE IN THIS PAINTING.
WHAT ARE YOU USING AS THE BASIS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE AGAIN AND SUBORDINATION AND WORK PERFORMANCE WORK PERFORMANCE.
YOU'RE QUESTIONING MY WORK PERFORMANCE.
I'VE BEEN IN THIS JOB OVER 10 AND A HALF YEARS, AND NO ONE HAS EVER QUESTIONED MY WORK PERFORMANCE.
UH, YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT NOBODY EVER CHECKED IN ON YOU OR GAVE INPUT AS WELL ON YOUR WORK PERFORMANCE WHEN WE BEGAN TO.
SO THERE ARE SOME, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE SOME DETAILED ISSUES, MS. PENNY WORK PERFORMANCE AND IN SUPPORT, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, I SERVED THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD, NOT THE PLEASURE OF BRANDON WILLIAMS, OBVIOUSLY, OBVIOUSLY HOW CONVENIENT.
UM, NOW BACK TO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY JOHN SMITH, UH, THE VOTE ALL IN FAVOR BY SAYING AYE.
I WILL GET RESTATE THE MOTION.
SO THE MOTION IS I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ISSUED A PRE-DISCIPLINARY OR LETTER TO MS. PENNY FOR INSUBORDINATION AND WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS.
I WOULD ADD THAT WE PLACED MS. PENNY ON THE MIDDLE OF STRAIGHTER LEAVE AFFECTIVELY MILLILITER, IMMEDIATELY ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY WITH PAY.
AND WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
PRINCE ROBINSON MOTION PASSES.
BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS A GERMAN.
I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN SECOND.