[00:00:05]
UM, TIME IS OFFICIALLY 10 52, AND I LIKE TO KYLE, YOU DIDN'T MISS MUNICIPAL FIRE POLICE, CIVIL SERVICE MEETING TO ORDER, UM,
[1. Roll Call]
LIGHT TO BEGIN WITH A ROLL CALL, I GUESS I'LL DO THAT.UM, MR. PRESS ROBINSON, MR. JOHN SMITH, SERGEANT TRINA DORSEY, UH, MS. SHARON LEWIS, MR. BRANDON WILLIAMS PRESENT.
AND OF COURSE MYSELF, JOSHUA, DARA, I'M PRESENT.
WELL, YES, WE'D LIKE TO WELCOME A NEW BOARD MEMBER, UH, OFFICER TRUMAN DORSEY, UH, TO THE BOARD.
UH, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU, UH, AL CROWD WHO'S HERE.
COULD YOU, UH, DO YOU MIND JUST SPEAKING TO HIM, TELLING HIM A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS ON THERE? SHE SHE'S.
WE SWORE IN BEFORE THE WATER, THERE YOU GO.
HELLO? CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? THERE WE GO.
SO I DIDN'T TRAIN THE DOORS AT 20 YEAR MEMBER OF THE BAGGAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF, BUT CURRENTLY I SERVE IN UNIFORM PATROL SPENDING SOME TIME IN THE CRIMINAL AND SVU DIVISION.
UM, BUT I ENJOY UNIFORM PATROL FOR SOME REASON.
SO, UH, THAT'S WHERE I'VE SPENT MOST OF MY CAREER.
AND NOW I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF, UH, TRYING TO REPRESENT MY DEPARTMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
SO THERE'S MY FIRST DAY AS Y'ALL CAN TELL.
SO, BUT, UH, THANK YOU GUYS FOR WELCOMING TO WELCOMING ME TO THIS BOARD AND I I'M JUST ANXIOUS TO GET STARTED.
OKAY, WELL THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING, SIR.
WOULD THAT BE IN DONE? I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT WE DID.
HEARING NONE, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER,
[2. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda]
UH, TO, UH, MOVE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WE, WE WE'VE HAD SOME CHANGE WILL BE ATTENDED THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE DONE YOUR MOVIE.UM, I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE CHANGES IS THAT I BELIEVE ITEM NUMBER 10 IS GOING TO BE REMOVED, CORRECT? THAT'S THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO BRP? DEE'S QUESTION ABOUT SHORTING THE TEST POSTING WINDOW FROM 20 DAYS.
I UNDERSTAND THEY'D LIKE TO REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY'RE REMOVING IT.
IS THAT THE WISH? IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? WELL, THEY HAVE ANOTHER ASK AS A FINAL NUMBER SEVEN IS TO CONSIDER THE MOTION TO CALL FOR EXAMINATIONS.
WE HAVE CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST.
THEY LIKE TO ADD COMPUTE COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICER ONE, FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN, ONE POLICE CADET AND CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST ONE.
THEY'D LIKE TO ADD THAT TO THE AGENDA.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN ON THAT ONE, UM, THOSE, I WANT TO SAY THAT WE REVIEWED THIS IN A MEETING, UM, TWO LAST MEETING AND WE DEFERRED THEM BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A POLICE REPRESENTATIVE TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THE POLICE REP A OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS AND I DON'T HAVE THEM HERE IN FRONT OF HIM UNLESS YOU DO JUST CALL IT FOR THE AG EXAM.
I MEAN, THEY'RE CALLED, THEY'RE GOING TO POSE FOR IT.
THEY DON'T HAVE APPLICATION YET.
OH, THEY HAD SOME KIND OF APPLICATIONS LAST MEETING.
LOOK AT THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING.
I KNOW WE'RE NOT THERE YET, BUT, UH, YEAH, SO IT'S YOU'RE RIGHT.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE THE APPLICATIONS? I DON'T HAVE THOSE WITH ME.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GUYS DEFER THAT UNTIL THE POLICE REPRESENTATIVE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GOOD TO GO.
[00:05:01]
CASE I DECLINED TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.ANY OTHER BANKERS TO THE AGENDA? UH, SO THE, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO, UM, THE ONLY ACTION WOULD BE TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER 10.
SO IS THERE, IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE, WE MOVE ITEM FROM THE AGENDA.
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, MOTION PASSES, 90 AND MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA AS MODIFIED.
UM, SO DO YOU WANT TO READ IT AS MODIFIED OR I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT'S THE SAME WITHOUT MODIFIED I'LL SECOND SECOND BY MR. SMITH.
[3. Conduct Public Hearing concerning whether to adopt class of Chief Information Technology Specialist.]
WE HAVE TO CONDUCT THE HEARING CONCERNING WHETHER TO ADOPT A CLASS OF CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICER.UM, THIS IS IN TWO PARTS DESCRIPTION NOW.
I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSED CLASS PLAN FOR CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
FIRST I'D OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MATTER? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MATTER? WELL, ITEM NUMBER THREE, CORRECT.
NOW WE ALREADY KNOW WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THIS NUMBER THREE, THIS NUMBER THREE.
THIS IS ABOUT ON THE ITEM THAT WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW.
SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING WHETHER TO ADOPT A CLASS, A CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST.
AT THAT POINT, I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. SMITH HAS A, AN AMENDMENT AMENDMENT THAT HE WANTS TO MAKE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT FIRST, BUT FIRST OPEN UP THE FLOOR, OPEN UP THE, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING, OKAY.
I LIKE TO OPEN IT AT THIS TIME, UH, FOR, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND THEN I THINK MR. SMITH HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT HE WANTS TO MAKE TO THE JOB SPEC BEFORE I READ IT OUT LOUD, MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSED CLASS PLAN.
I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE CURRENT PROPOSED CLASS PLAN, UH, CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST, AND JOSH IS GONNA READ THE, THE PROPOSED PLAN.
UM, I'M GOING TO READ THE CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS, THE PROPOSED CLASS PLAN.
THAT'S THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS.
THIS CLASS COMPRISES A RESPONSIBLE NON-SUPERVISORY POSITION IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT.
THE PRIMARY DUTIES OF WHICH INCLUDE THE MAINTENANCE, PROGRAMMING SECURITY AND REPAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT'S COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEM AND RELATED EQUIPMENT.
THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS CLASS ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COMPUTERIZED RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND REPORT AND RESPONDING TO REQUESTS FROM SYSTEM USERS FOR ASSISTANCE WITH COMPUTER NETWORKING OR TECHNOLOGY PROBLEMS. THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS CLASS WORK WITH A MODERATE OF SUPERVISION REPORTING TO AND HAVING WORK REVIEWED BY THE FIRE CHIEF.
THE APPLE'S OF WORK EXAMPLES LISTED BELOW ARE ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY.
THEY'RE NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL DUTIES WHICH MAY BE ASSIGNED NEITHER ARE THEY INTENDED TO EXCLUDE OTHER DUTIES, WHICH MIGHT BE LOGICAL ASSIGNMENTS TO THIS CLASS.
DESIGNERS, IMPLEMENTS, MODIFIES AND MAINTAINS A COMPUTERIZED RECORD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
AND IN A WEBSITE FOR THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPS AND RECOMMENDS POLICIES FOR USE OF THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTERS AND MONITORS TO COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT CONTROLS USER ACCESS TO, TO THE SYSTEM PERFORMED FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO CORRECT PROBLEMS BASED ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF SYSTEM OPERATION MAKES DECISIONS CONCERNING WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ALL COMPUTERIZED RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND DETERMINES IN WHAT FORM THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE KEPT IT EXAMINES AND EVALUATES THE EXISTING RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A NEW SYSTEM OR TO RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS AND SYSTEMS FORMAT USE, AND CONTROL CONSULTS WITH DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMS AND GATHER SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
[00:10:01]
ENSURES THAT THE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS KEPT CURRENT AND MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRACKING DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITY RESPONSE TO ALL ALARMS OR EMERGENCY CALLS TO ENSURE THAT THE MOBILE DATA, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS ON FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY PREPARES INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS AND FOR DISSEMINATION RELATIVE TO THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROCESS DEVELOPS NEW FORMS FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE AND REVIEWS, DRAFTS OF RECORDS, REPORTS AND FORMS COMPLETED BY DEPARTMENTAL PERSONNEL.PRIOR TO ENTRY INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, WRITES REPORTS AND LETTERS AND ANSWER TO WRITTEN OR ORAL REQUESTS TO HANDLE PROBLEMS OR OTHER NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT READS GRASS CHARTS, MANUALS, RECORDS, REPORTS, OR RELATED DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS CREATE SPREADSHEETS, ANALYZES DATA AND TRANSFERS.
DATA FROM RECORDS, REPORTS AND FORMS FROM PAPER FILES TO ELECTRONIC FILES, COMPLIES, ORGANIZE, AND RETRIEVE RECORDS, REPORTS OR FORMS FROM FILES WHEN NEEDED PERSONALLY COMPLETES AND FILES ALL FORMS AND RECORDS.
RUNS QUERIES AS NEEDED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT RECORDS ENSURES PROPER DATA IS AN RMS SYSTEM FOR OCCUPANCIES AND INSPECTION ACTIVITIES SUPERVISES A FORMAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR ALL COMPUTER RECORD MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SEES THAT SUCH PROGRAM IS PROPERLY STAFFED AND SUPPLIED WITH TRAINING RESOURCES, PREPARES WRITTEN PROCEDURES AND MANUALS TO BE USED FOR DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AND THE OPERATION OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND APPLICATION PROVIDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAININGS TO SYSTEM USERS PROVIDES FOR REGULAR EMPLOYEE COMPUTER TRAINING AT ALL LEVELS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT BY EVALUATING TRAINING NEEDS AND OFFERING DEPARTMENT TRAINING OR OUTSIDE TRAINING TO MEET THE NEEDS SERVES AS AN INSTRUCTOR FOR TRAINING COURSES RELATING TO COMPUTER NETWORK FUND FUNCTIONS TAUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE USE OF DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT AND MANUALS PROVIDES COMPUTER RELATED, ALL THE JOB TRAINING FOR NEW EMPLOYEES AND OBTAINED TRAINING ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE OBSERVES AND EVALUATES DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS RELATED TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TAKE STEPS, STEPS TO CORRECT ANY PROBLEMS, RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES, CONCERNING PROBLEMS WITH SYSTEMS AND OR OPERATIONS DESIGNS IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN VARIOUS LOCAL AREA NETWORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT REPAIRS OR PLACES, SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS SUCH AS CAD FIRST DO AN RMS AND DEPARTMENT VEHICLES ORGANIZES AND STORES, DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES IN AN ORDERLY FASHION TO ALLOW EASE OF LOCATING AND RETRIEVING MATERIALS, COMPLIES COMPILES INFORMATION TO BE USED IN DEVELOPING A BUDGET FOR TECHNOLOGY-RELATED PURCHASES MEETS WITH DIVISION HEADS TO REVIEW REQUEST AND MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE OVERSEAS AND PARTICIPATES IN THE PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMPUTER RELATED SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT PROMOTES A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DAILY PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES BY INTERACTING WITH THE PUBLIC SERVING AS A DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE AT MEETINGS AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES DURING EMERGENCIES, IN ORDER TO SHARE INFORMATION AND DATA ASSIST PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS WITH SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, PREPARES NEWS RELEASES OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT STATEMENT FOR PUBLICATION ANSWERS, TELEPHONE CALLS AND ASSIST THE PUBLIC WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OR ANY RELATED AREAS OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FORMS, ANY RELATED DUTIES ASSIGNED THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MET BY FILING BY THE FILING DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION, FOR ADMISSION TO THE EXAMINATION, MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, INCLUDING BEING A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND ILLEGAL AGE AFTER THE OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT.
BUT BEFORE BEGINNING WORK IN THIS CLASS MUST PASS A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, THE SELECTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WHICH SHALL BE AUTHORIZED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DESIGNED TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD HEALTH AND PHYSICAL FITNESS SUFFICIENT TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL, ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE POSITION WITH OR WITHOUT ACCOMMODATION.
THE APPLICANT MUST POSSESS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA, HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE, HIGH SCHOOL TRANSCRIPT AFFIDAVIT FROM THE ISSUE IN HOT SCHOOL, A SHOW ASSOCIATE'S OR BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR COLLEGE TRANSCRIPT, ANY ONE OF WHICH MUST INDICATE THAT GRADUATION HAS OCCURRED OR A DEGREE AWARDED ANY LOUISIANA APPLICANT WHO PRESENTS A HOME STUDY DIPLOMA SHALL SUBMIT A NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION INDICATING LOUISIANA BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION APPROVAL OF THE HOME STUDY CURRICULUM.
NON LOUISIANA APPLICANTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT PROOF OF COMPLETION OF A HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCREDITED THE AFRICAN STATE OR THE STATE APPROVED AGENCY.
A CERTIFICATION, A CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION SHALL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO SUBSTITUTE FOR DIPLOMA
[00:15:01]
OR EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE IN ELECTRIC, ELECTRONIC COMPUTER OR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT RELATED FIELD WITH A WORKING KNOWLEDGE AND DATA AND TELECOMMUTE TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INCLUDING INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING LOCAL AREA NETWORKS MUST POSSESS A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE.IT MUST NOT BE LESS THAN 18 YEARS OF AGE.
THAT IS THE PROPOSED NEW CLASS DESCRIPTION.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS AND EXAMS WORK MATCHES THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE STATE EXAMINER.
I MOVED AS WE ACCEPT AND UH, AFTER HE, MAY I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE CLASS OF CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER FOR PUBLIC HEALTH OR PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT.
[4. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from July 25, 2022, meeting]
UH, SO MOVING ON TO ITEM, NUMBER FOUR, TO CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, WE ALL HAVE THE MEETINGS AND THE MINUTES IN FRONT OF US.I LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOUR PLEASURE IS.
WE MOVED TO ACCEPT BY MR. PEREZ.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND BY MR. SMITH? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
MOVING ON TO NUMBER, UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS TO APPROVE OR REJECT PERSONNEL ACTION.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY PERSONNEL ACTION.
ALL THESE ARE BASED ON MY OLD EITHER COPY OR THE OLD COPIES.
SO I'M HEARING THAT, UM, WE'D LIKE TO MOVE ON
[6. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Results of Examinations Police Criminal Specialist I, Police Fingerprint Technician, Police Communications Officer I, Criminal Intelligence Analysis, Police Captain, Fire Public Information Officer, Fire Communications Officer II, District Fire Chief, Chief Fire Investigator, Fire Communications Officer III, Assistant Hazardous Material Chief, Secretary to Fire Chief.]
TO ITEM NUMBER SIX AND JUST TO CONSIDER MOTIONS TO APPROVE OR REJECT RESULT EXAMINATIONS OR POLICE CRIMINAL SPECIALIST, ONE POLICE FINGERPRINT, TECHNICIAN, POLICE, COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, ONE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, POLICE, CAPTAIN FIRE, PUBLIC INFORMATION, OFFICER FIRE, COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, DIRECTOR, FIRE, CHIEF DISTRICT FIRE, CHIEF, UH, CHIEF FIRE INVESTIGATOR, FIRE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS, THREE ASSISTANT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, CHIEF AND SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF.IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND BY BOTH PRESS AND MISS STUCK WITH TRAINING.
[7. Consider Motion to Call for Examination(s) – Chief Information Technology Specialist]
ALL RIGHT.NEXT, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER TO CALL FOR EXAMINATION, UH, CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST.
AND THAT WILL BE IT BECAUSE WE DENIED THE REQUEST TO ADD THE, THE OTHER ITEMS. SO, UM, I MOVED, WE CALL FOR THE EXAMINATION.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND BY MR. ROBINSON? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[8. Consider Motion to Approve Application: Fire Assistant Chief of Training and Fire Training Officer]
IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS CONSIDERED A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR FIRE ASSISTANT OF TRAINING AND FIRE OFFICER TRAINING OFFICER.UH, DO YOU WANT TO OPEN UP PUBLICLY? WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, HAD ENOUGH YET TO MAKE THE MOTION FOR OUR, SO THE POINT OF SOME PROCEDURE, WE ARE REQUESTING A DEFERRAL UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, JUST UNTIL WE HAD SOME CONTROVERSY OVER SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH THE TESTING.
SO WE WOULD JUST ASK MORE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, BEFORE WE APPROVED TESTING, WE'VE TALKED THIS OVER WITH THE FIRE CHIEF AND WE AGREED ON.
SO THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCREPANCY WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE OR REJECT ONE OF THE APPLICANT'S BROTHER, SISTER, CHIEF OF TRAINING AND THE CHIEF AND MICHAEL PADANOSTRA, WHICH IS OUR UNION PRESIDENT, TAMARA IN AGREEMENT WITH POSTPONING THE, UH, APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATIONS UNTIL NEXT MONTH.
AND I'LL MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH WILL ALSO BE HOPEFULLY MOVED UP TO THE 19TH.
[00:20:01]
FOR THE RECORD, WOULD YOU MIND STATING YOUR NAME? UH, LEVEL 5, 5, 7 UNION PRESIDENT, THE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION.THEN WE HAD MADE A MOTION AND SECOND BY PRESS ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[9. Consider Request for Appeal Hearing – Fire Department.]
NUMBER NINE, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER A REQUEST OF APPEAL HEARING FIRE DEPARTMENT.IT WAS THAT'S UH, UH, MICHAEL, IS THERE ANY, UH, CHINESE TO DENZEL'S APPEAL? NO CHANGE IT.
INSTEAD OF THE APPEAL IS FOR DINSDALE HORTON.
HE WANTS TO APPEAL IS THE MOTION HERE TO HERE.
WHO IS THE PERSON APPEALING? DINSDALE HORTON, DENZEL HORTON.
UH, WHEN WAS THE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM AND JUST A DIS HE RECEIVED A LETTER ON AUGUST THE FIFTH AND HE APPEALED WITHIN THE 15 DAYS.
AND WHAT IS HE APPEALING? HE WISHES TO BE REINSTATED AS A FIRE INVESTIGATOR.
HE WAS DEMOTED FROM THE POSITION OF FIRE INVESTIGATOR.
I THINK HE WAS IN HIS WORKING TEST PERIOD.
AND HE DIDN'T PASS THE WORKING TEST PERIOD.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND HE'S APPEALING THAT DECISION.
HE'S APPEALING THE DECISION TO DEMOTE HIM BACK TO CLASS AND FIREFIGHTER.
WE JUST NEED TO PUT IT ON RECORD AND SCHEDULE A HEARING.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT SEPTEMBER IS NOT GOOD FOR THE COUNCIL TO, UH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOW.
SO, UH, OCTOBER, DO WE HAVE THAT OPEN DATE? IS THAT THE NEXT OPEN DAY? WE'VE GOT APPEAL SCHEDULED, BUT THEY'VE BEEN SETTLING.
I'M FINE WITH THAT OCTOBER BE GOOD.
SO YOU ONLY NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL AND SCHEDULE IT FOR I'M MAKING A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL AND SCHEDULE IT FOR THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'M GOING TO TELL YOU IN JUST A SECOND, UH, OCTOBER 24TH, OCTOBER 24TH.
IT WAS SECOND BY PRESS ROBINSON.
[11. Discussion related to Board Secretary Position]
TO ITEM.NUMBER 10 IS DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY.
I'LL HIT THIS ONE BASICALLY WHEN WE'VE ENGAGED MS. SPRAWL, AND WE LOOKED FOR HER TO BEGIN AT SOME POINT THIS WEEK, WE'LL BE GOING FORWARD WITH, HEY, I NEED IT.
[12.a. In re Appeal Hearing of Officer Alvarez - Consider Motion for Disposition filed by Officer Alvarez.]
ON TO NUMBER 11, HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS.UM, THE APPEAL OF OFFICER ALVAREZ CONSIDER A MOTION WHERE DISPOSITION FILE HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF US.
YEAH, AND I, MR. DEWEY IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THIS OFFICER ALVAREZ AND I BELIEVE HE WILL PRESENT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M MR. ALVAREZ, LIKE THE WAY THIS PRESENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUMMARY DISPOSITION, UH, BEFORE YOU IT'S QUITE CONCISE, I BELIEVE MOM MOTIVE, SUMMARY TO EFFICIENT.
HOPEFULLY YOU ALL HAVE COPIES OF IT.
UH, THIS IS ALL ABOUT DUE PROCESS FOR MR. ALVAREZ AND THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT.
HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR 20 DAYS AFTER WE HAD A PREJUDICE PLANARIAN THERE, WHICH TOOK PLACE ON JULY 14TH AND STUFF.
WHEN WE WERE BLENDED BY THE CHIEF, WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT IT AND THIS, AND YOU TALK ABOUT LOT OF MAIL AND REASONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING THESE HEARINGS IS BECAUSE IT'S A PROPERTY, RIGHT? AND JUSTICE MARSHALL WAY BACK THEN WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW IMPERATIVE IT IS FOR EMPLOYEES AND POLICE OFFICERS FIRE OR ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE PARKING WHEN THEY'RE DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
AND WHAT'S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT AFFECTS NOT ONLY THEM, BUT IN FACT, THE MOMENT THEY'RE TERMINATED OR LOSE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY AFFECTS THEM.
AND IT AFFECTS THEIR FAMILIES.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVERY JUSTICE MARSHALL, THAT EVERYTHING IS PROPERLY DONE AND DONE IN THE CORRECT MANNER TO ENSURE DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH AN IMPERATIVE AND VALUE TO THAT PARTICULAR CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE.
AND RIGHT HERE, THAT THE REASONS THAT THE CHIEF GIVES THE 20 DAYS SUSPENSION DID NOT REACH
[00:25:01]
THE LEVEL OF DUE PROCESSES NECESSARY.AND QUITE FRANKLY, IF IT WAS DONE, IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR THIS BOARD NOT TO HAVE THESE MARATHON HEARINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN KNOWN TO HAVE OVER THE LAST YEAR.
AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IF HE GIVES CLARITY TO HIS DECISIONS AND THERE'S A CONNECTIVITY, IN OTHER WORDS, HERE'S THE INVESTIGATION HERE ARE MY REASONS FOR UPHOLDING OR NOT SUSTAINING PARTICULAR ALLEGATIONS AND THE REASONS FOR, I TELL YOU NE AND THEN IT COMES TO THIS BOARD SO THAT US AS THE PUBLIC HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO THEN CUT THOSE SPECIFIC NEEDS OR BRING FORWARD INFORMATION AND WITNESSES TO LET THIS BOARD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS PROPER.
THIS, THIS DOESN'T MEET THAT CRITERIA.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, ALL THE COURT CASES.
AND THE PART OF IT AS WELL READ IS THAT BEFORE THE FARM MAY REACH A DECISION REGARDING AN EMPLOYEE, WHICH WE EXPLAINED TO SOWING VITAL, THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO ORAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM WERE NOT ACQUIESCED TO THAT.
HE WAS GIVEN THE REASON HE WAS GIVEN THE INVESTIGATION OF WHAT WAS GOING AGAINST HIM.
BUT THEN THE IMPORTANT PART IS AN EXPLANATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT GIVEN OUT AND I'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY NOT AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.
HE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE HEARING TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.
A PART OF THIS IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE IN EVIDENCE, AND THAT IS THE PART THAT'S LACKING.
THAT'S THE DUE PROCESSES SO NECESSARY.
AND AGAIN, WE'LL SAY ALL OF US CON IN THE LONG RUN, IF AN EMPLOYEE HAS TO APPEAL THAT'S, THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
UH, MY SAME COLLEAGUE, MR. RAINS, AS DID EMOTION, UH, AND OPPOSITION OF IT.
AND THERE'S A FEW THINGS IN THERE I'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD TO THE THING HE, HE TALKS ABOUT.
THE HEARING WAS HELD ON JULY 14, CHIEF PAUL SUSTAINED ALL THE ABOVE POLICY VIOLATIONS.
AND THEN THE FIRST IS DECISION REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT HE WAS GIVEN OR ANY OTHER CLASSES HE WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE THERE IN LIES THE PROBLEM, HE SUSTAINED THE DECISION, BUT THERE WAS NO REASONS FOR US DECISION.
THERE WAS NO CONNECTIVITY, WHAT THEY HAVE HERE.
AND THEY USED AS EXHIBITS TWO AND THREE, I BELIEVE IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE WHEN WE GO INTO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, I, EXCUSE ME, WHEN WE GO INTO THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THEY HAVE A LIST OF ALL THE CHARGES AT ALL, THE BOXES OF IT MADE.
THEY CHECK OFF THAT AND MAYBE A VIOLATION OF ALL THE POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS.
AND IT SAYS, HERE'S WHAT, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING INTO RELATIVE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION.
IF YOU LOOK AT ONCE HE REACHES THE DECISION, HE JUST MARKS ON THE TOP OF THE DECISION, 20 NATIVE SUSPENSION AND THE CLASS TO DO.
THERE'S NO REASONS THERE'S NO CONNECTIVITY.
THEY REGURGITATE THE EXACT SAME INFORMATION THAT WE HAD GOING INTO THE YEAR.
SO OUR QUESTION IS TO THE CHIEF AND WHAT LACKS AND DUE PROCESSES, WHY DO YOU SUSTAIN THESE THINGS? AND THEN SOME OF THEM THAT ARE MORE SELF-EVIDENT THAN OTHERS, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF AN OFFICER, UH, THOSE KINDS OF THOSE KINDS OF CHARGES, WHAT IS, WHERE DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT REACHES THAT LEVEL TO DO THAT? SO THERE HAS TO BE A CONNECTIVITY.
AND THAT'S AGAIN, THE FULL EXPLANATION OF HOW DO YOU COME TO THIS CONCLUSION.
AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR OWN EXHIBITS, IT'S THE SAME REGURGITATION THAT HE HAD BEFORE.
AND IT JUST TALKS ABOUT THE IMF.
HE SAID, THIS PERSON SAID THIS, THIS PERSON SAID THAT THIS IS WHAT THE OFFICER SAID AND RESPONSE, BUT THERE'S NO REASONS THAT I BELIEVE THAT THIS PERSON IS MORE CREDIBLE.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF THIS PARTICULAR CHARGE.
AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK ON EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO IS THIS WHOLE CONCLUSION HAS WRITTEN 20 DAYS SUSPENSION.
UH, ALONG WITH, AGAIN, I'M READING THROUGH THIS AND WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SENT TO LIEUTENANT CLARITY, THE UNIFORM PATROL COMMANDER.
AND IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY KIND OF CLARITY AS TO THE CONNECTIVITY, WHICH IS AGAIN, A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE CHIEF'S REASONING, THAT'S WHEN WE COME TO THIS BOARD TO APPEAL AND YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY WE AGREE OR DISAGREE AND Y'ALL CAN EITHER AFFIRM OR DENY OR I'M IN THE CHIEFS ONE.
BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT CONNECTIVITY.
WE JUST HAVE A REGURGITATION OF THE FACTS, UH, ALSO, AND HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
MR. RAMSEY TALKS ABOUT THE FACTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE ALLEGED EVENTS ARE PROVIDED.
AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME THING THAT WE HAVE GOING INTO IT.
WE HAVE COMING OUT OF IT, BUT THERE'S NO EXPLANATION OF THAT.
AND THAT EXPLANATION IS IMPORTANT PART, PARTICULARLY FOR THIS BOARD AND FOR MY CLIENT
[00:30:01]
TO SEE WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THAT.AND IF THERE'S INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT WE CAN FURTHER GIVE TO THIS BOARD TO HAVE SOME CLARITY TO APPEAL THESE DECISIONS.
BUT WHEN THERE'S NO REASON BEFORE THEN WE HAVE THESE MARATHON HEARINGS WHERE YOU GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN, WHICH I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES IT, WE'D LIKE TO TRY TO AVOID.
HE ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE CASES THAT WAS CITED IN PROCELL AND WHICH I AGREE THAT THE FACT PATTERNS ARE DIFFERENT, BUT THE DUE PROCESS IS THE ISSUE.
AS ATTORNEY WILL KNOW THAT THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART.
AND AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT THE EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU COME TO THESE CONCLUSIONS IS IMPERATIVE FOR MY CLIENT, SO THAT HE CAN HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING BEFORE MAKING AN APPEAL DECISION AS TO WHAT WE'RE APPEALING TO GIVE THIS BOARD MORE CLARITY AS TO WHAT THERE WERE APPEALING AND THE REASONS WHY THAT SHE SUSTAINED NOT JUST HERE'S A BROAD INVESTIGATION.
HE SAID THIS, HE SAID THAT THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND OVER HERE.
THIS IS WHAT WE, THIS PERSON SAID.
AND THEN WE MAKE OUR OWN DETERMINATIONS.
OTHERWISE WE HAVE A FULL HEARING AGAIN, AND WE GO OVER ALL THE FACTS AGAIN AT AN APPEAL PROCESS WHEN IT REALLY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO WHAT ARE YOUR REASONS AND WHAT IS THE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN DO THROUGH THE CONTRACTOR.
AND BASED ON THAT, I FEEL THAT HE HAS LACKED, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY AND DUE PROCESS.
THAT'S BEEN LAID OUT PRIOR TO LOUDERMILL AND, UH, BAKER AND PROCELL AND TALKING ABOUT DUE PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF THE COMPLETE REASONS.
HE DOES NOT GIVE AN EXPLANATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THAT LACK OF EXPLANATION, INFRINGES UPON MR. ALVAREZ AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
AND THEREFORE, I ASK THAT YOU GRANT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
OH, I KNOW YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT POLICIES, RIGHT? AS LISTED IN HIS, UH, SUMMARY FOR DISPOSITION, UM, VIOLATION OF POLICIES.
BUT IN THE SECOND PAGE, I SEE THAT THEY SAID HE COMPLIED, HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH POLICIES REGARDING THE USE OF A FIREARM.
IS, IS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT, OF COURSE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS FIREARM A POLICY ON HOW TO HANDLE A PROPER FIREARM.
WOULD THAT BE ONE OF THE, I MEAN, YOU SAID, AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE SIMPLISTIC JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
THIS ONE WAS, UH, HE HAD AN IMPROVED DEPARTMENTAL APPROVED.
IT WAS A PERSONAL ISSUE, UH, RIFLE.
UH, THERE WAS A SLING ISSUE WITH IT.
HE EXPLAINED THE REASONS BEHIND THAT.
SO THERE WAS SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WAS APPLICABLE, BUT IT WAS AN APPROVED WEAPON BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT, IT WAS NOT A DISCHARGE OR ANYTHING ABOUT A WEAPON.
IT WAS THE ACTUAL WEAPON ITSELF.
AND THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE, UH, IN PRACTICE AT THAT TIME AND BATTERY, SO TO SPEAK.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE A SLEIGH AND THERE'S CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS YOU HAVE, OR IF YOU HAVE A SCOPE THAT IS APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, ALL THINGS WERE IN COMPLIANCE.
THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THIS SLING, WHICH WAS EXPLAINED INTO THE RECORD AND HIS THING AGAIN, AND TO GO BACK TO MY WHOLE THING.
ISN'T SO HE HAS AN REASON FOR THAT.
IS THAT A REASONABLE EXPLANATION? HE DOESN'T EVER ADDRESS.
TECHNICALLY THE SLANG WASN'T ATTACHED, BUT WAS THERE A REASON, OH, YES, HE GOT STUCK.
YOU KNOW, HE COULD STILL SAY, WELL, I STILL FIND THAT HE WAS FEELING VIOLATION OR BASED ON THIS, I UNDERSTAND THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES I DO OR DO NOT SUSTAIN IT AGAIN.
THIS ONE IS VERY CLEAR WHEN HE, HE, RIGHT AFTER WE HAVE THE HEARING, HE RULES, I AFFIRM ALL THE CHARGES.
DOESN'T GIVE ONE REASON IN THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE THAT HE GIVES A REASON FOR.
AND LATER ON, UH, 60 DAYS LATER, WHATEVER IT WAS APPROXIMATELY, HE GIVES US, YOU KNOW, THE 20 DAY SUSPENSION.
HE DOESN'T SAY, I AFFIRM ALL THE ALLEGED ALLEGATIONS.
HERE ARE MY REASONS WHY, AND THEN HE GETS A SUSPENSION.
HE JUST SAYS, I AFFIRM IT LATER ON HIS 20TH SUSPENSION, NEVER THE EXPLANATION OF WHY HE AFFIRMED THE EXPLANATION.
AND THIS IS A MULTITUDE OF THINGS.
ONE IS IT HAS TO DO WITH A FIREARM PATROL RIFLES OR USE OF RESTRAINTS.
UM, BUT STUFF LIKE CONDUCT ON BECOMING AN OFFICER.
I THINK IT HAS TO BE A REASONABLE WHEN SOMETHING IS EGREGIOUS FOR RISES TO THAT LEVEL, THAT'S SORT OF A CATCH ALL ARTICLE.
SO I WOULD EXPECT AND HOPE FROM THE CHIEF THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT WAS THE CONDUCT THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY BELIEVE THAT WAS AGREGIOUS ENOUGH TO FIND THAT YOU WAS KIND OF GOING TO COME UP AND OFFICER THERE'S NO EXPLANATION OF THAT.
AND HE'S NOW DENYING US THE DUE PROCESS AND SAY, HERE ARE MY REASONS.
I'M APPEALING TO YOU AND ASK YOU FOR A, THIS POSITION BECAUSE HE NEVER GRANTED ME THAT RIGHT.
TO GIVE ME ANY SPECIFICITY AND ANY CONNECTION OR EXPLANATION OF WHY HE AFFIRMED SUSPENSION.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE SUMMARY, HIS POSITION.
AND I THINK THE COURTS HAVE ROUTINELY IN THE 19TH AND FIRST CIRCUIT HAD UPHELD THAT YOU NEED TO DO PROCESS.
AND I DON'T KNOW WAS THE EARLIER CASE BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
NOW, ANSWERING OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, SO THEY DIDN'T GIVE YOU EXPLANATION WHY HE WAS BEING DISCIPLINED
[00:35:01]
FOR CONDUCT ON BECOMING, THEY JUST CHECKED THE BOX AND IT'S CORRECT THE SAME SAMPLE OF WHY HE, WHY HE WAS GETTING DISCIPLINED FOR THAT.THAT HAS TO BE, THAT IS A PART OF THE POLICE BILL RICE.
I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE DISCIPLINING THEM FOR THAT REASON.
OR THE MISAPPREHENSION THAT JUST LISTING THIS CHARGE AS WE GO IN THERE AND CHECKING OFF THE BOXES OF THE POSSIBLE ALLEGATIONS, AND THEN JUST COMING BACK AND AFFIRMING THAT DOESN'T GET, AGAIN, THAT'S AN ACTIVITY.
WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR REASONS YOUR ALLEGATIONS GO INTO AND THEIR OWN EXHIBITS SHOW THAT IT'S THE SAME THING REPEATED ONE AND TWO.
AND THEY'RE NOT GIVING ME AN EXPLANATION.
I CAN'T APPEAL SOMETHING WITHOUT SOMEONE MORE SPECIFICITY TO HELP THIS BOARD AND TO KEEP THE, THE HEARINGS SHORT TO THE POINT AND SAY, OKAY, HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE APPEALING.
WENT IN, UM, KIND OF LIKE A STANDARD HEARING YOU WOULD GO IN AND SUPPORT OF THE OFFICER, UM, PRE DISCIPLINARY HERE THREE DAYS, UM, Y'ALL WENT IN, DID Y'ALL LOOK AT THE VIDEO, RIGHT? AND THEN AFTER THE VIDEO, THE DECISION WAS MADE, IS THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? THERE'S USUALLY AN AMENDMENT THIS, BUT WHAT THEY DO IS THEY GO THERE AND SOME OF THE DEPUTY CHIEFS OR WHEREVER IS THERE, HE LETS THEM ASK ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY CLARITY ON SPECIFIC THINGS.
HE GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL THEIR SIDE, WHICH IS ALL IN LINE WITH LOUDERMILL AGAIN.
SO THAT PART IS WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
MY PROBLEM IS YOU THEN SAY, I AFFIRM EVERYTHING AND I WILL GIVE YOU MY DECISION ON THE ACTUAL PUNISHMENT.
I THINK IT WAS GIVEN, LIKE I SAID, ROUGHLY 45, 60 DAYS LATER OF WHAT THE PUNISHMENT WAS THAT HE WROTE JUST AS YOU SEE ON THE EXHIBIT, JUST ON THE TOP OF IT 20 DAYS, BUT WAS HE ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN HIS ACTION? AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY PROBLEM.
HE EXPLAINS IT TALKS ABOUT IT AND HE DID IT.
AND HE DID IT AGAIN WITH THE CHIEF, WHICH YOU KNOW, IS EVERYTHING WAS LAID OUT.
AND THEN IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT DOES THE CHIEF USES? WHAT ARE THE REASONS THAT WERE BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY, BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED, WHAT ARE HIS REASONS, BUT NOW EITHER SUSTAIN OR NOT SUSTAIN THAT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED FOR CLARITY.
SO THAT WHEN ANY OF MY CLIENTS, WHEN I COME FORWARD TO THIS BOARD, THE CHIEF CAN SAY, THIS IS THE REASON I DID IT.
HE SAID, THIS, THIS PERSON WAS A WITNESS OVER HERE.
AND THIS PERSON THAT IS HERE, THIS VIDEO SHOWED THIS.
AND BASED ON THAT, I BELIEVE THAT IT MEANT TO THE LEVEL OF THIS.
AND IT COULD BE SHORTER SENTENCES JUST TO GIVE US SOME IDEA OF WHAT HIS BELIEFS ARE AND IF AN ACTIVITY, BUT YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU READ, HOW DO YOU HAVE THE EXPLANATION OF HOW THEY'RE GOING TO COME WITHOUT TELLING ME WHAT IT WAS THAT HE DID THAT WAS EGREGIOUS ENOUGH TO HAVE SUCH A, I THINK IT'S A SERIOUS OFFENSE.
THAT SOUNDS VERY BAD AND CAN BE TO REACH THAT.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS IT THIS OFFICER SUPPOSEDLY ALLEGEDLY DID THAT BREACHED THAT LEVEL OF PUNISHMENT OR ALLEGATION? WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION? AND IT LACKS THAT EXPLANATION.
AGAIN, WHEN WE COME TO THIS BOARD, Y'ALL CAN HAVE A VERY CLEAR IDEA OF WHY WE ARE HERE INSTEAD OF THEM GIVING YOU AN 11 PAGE DOCUMENT, SAY, Y'ALL FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
THE CHIEF IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE THOSE REASONS RIGHT OR WRONG, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE REVIEWED THOSE.
AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN DECIDE AT A LATER TIME, IF IT'S APPEAL, IF IT REACHES THAT MERIT OR IT DOESN'T REACH THAT MERIT, OR JUST BE A MAN.
THE ONE JIM RANG ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT THE ACTUAL COMPLAINTS WERE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SHIFTED SINCE IT WAS FILED.
PARAGRAPH FIVE OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION SAYS THE DEPARTMENT FULLY FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR THE VIOLATIONS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY MR. ALVAREZ.
SO DID NOT EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE.
THE RULING SIMPLY REGURGITATES AND SEVEN PAGES AND THE INFORMATION OBTAINED DURING THE INVESTIGATION.
LASTLY, IN THAT PARAGRAPH, THE LACK OF CLARITY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, FROM THE NOTICE TO THE RULING GAVE MR. ALVAREZ, NO OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OR TO TAKE OR TO ADEQUATELY
[00:40:01]
DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE ALLEGATIONS.AT NO POINT IN THERE, DID HE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE RULING OR THE TIMING OF THE EXPLANATION? THERE WAS A WRITTEN RULING, A NOTICE OF RULING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO MR. ALVAREZ, EXPLAINING TO HIM OVER 11 PAGES, WHAT HIS VIOLATIONS WERE, THE POLICY VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THAT, I WAS IN THE UNDERPINNING, THE FACTS RELATED TO THOSE.
AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT IN A MINUTE.
SO YOU UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE DID AND HOW HE EASILY COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS.
IN THIS CASE, AGAIN, WE DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM NOW.
WELL, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE THEY'VE, THEY'VE MADE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT I NEED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU.
UM, I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE GOT A COPY OF THESE ALVAREZ, HIS ATTORNEY.
DID HE GET A COPY OF WHAT YOU'RE FIXING TO READ? OH, OF COURSE, ABSOLUTELY.
NO, BECAUSE HE OBJECTED TO THE NOISE ROOM.
NO, THAT HE GOT A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF RULING.
OF COURSE IT WAS ATTACHED TO HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
THERE WAS NO OBJECT THAT JUST DIRECTLY, WHAT I'D ARGUE IS REGURGITATION OF THE SAME THING THAT WAS UP BEFORE.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO DRAW IT OUT.
IF WE NOT EVEN GONNA, UH, IF WE'RE NOT HERE, WE'RE JUST DOING A SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
WE ARE HAVING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, AND I'VE GOT TO PRESENT THE LEGAL ARGUMENT ON THAT.
UM, SO THOSE WERE THE ARGUMENTS THAT HE LAID OUT IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
NOW THE CHIEF TYPICALLY DOES EXPLAIN TO THE OFFICER WHAT HIS CONCERNS WERE ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
IT IS TRUE THAT SOMETIMES HE SUSTAINS CONDUCT, BUT DECIDES LATER, WHAT IS THEIR ACTUAL DISCIPLINE IS GOING TO BE.
AND THAT DISCIPLINE IS NOT IMPLEMENTED UNTIL LATER IT'S NOT IMPLEMENTED UNTIL THE NOTICE OF RULING COMES OUT.
SO UNTIL THE HAND OFFICER KNOWS, YEAH, I'M GOING TO BE SUSTAINED.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHIEF IS GOING TO DO.
AND THEN THE NOTICE RULING COMES OUT AND THAT'S WHEN IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE.
UM, HERE'S, WHAT'S REQUIRED UNDER LOUDERMILL.
UM, COUNSEL, READ IT A MINUTE AGO.
AN EMPLOYEE WITH PERMANENT STATUS IS ENTITLED TO ORAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
WELL, HERE HE RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTES AND EXPLANATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S EVIDENCE.
THERE IS ONE TO BE AN EXPLANATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE NOTICE OF ROOM AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.
AND HE HAD THAT AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
NOW YOU CAN'T JUST STOP READING AT THAT FIRST PAGE AND COMPLAINED THAT I DIDN'T GET THE FULL NOTICE OF ALL THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT TO READ THE ENTIRE NOTICE OF RULING.
THAT'S NOT TOO, NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK HIM AN OFFICER TO READ THE ENTIRE NOTICE OF RULING.
AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUES WERE IN YOUR CASE.
SO LET'S GO THROUGH THE NOTICE RULING, WHICH IS THE SECOND DOCUMENT THAT'S ATTACHED TO OUR OPPOSITION.
I DIDN'T FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
I JUST FILED AN OPPOSITION TODAY.
JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, UM, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ON MARCH 30TH, 2021, OFFICER ALVAREZ WAS CALLED TO A SCENE.
UH, THE CALL-OUT WAS RELATED TO AN INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANT WHO SAID HE HAD A GUN PULLED ON HIM, OFFICER ALVAREZ, RACED TO THE SCENE.
UH, HE CON MADE CONTACT WITH THE COMPLAINANT.
THE COMPLAINANT TOLD HIM, AND THIS IS ALL ON CAR VIDEO, AS WELL AS BODY CAM VIDEO.
THE COMPLAINANT TOLD HIM THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS SHORT WAS WEARING A HAT AND HAD A SILVER OR A GRAY VEHICLE, UM, WAS THE ONE THAT PULLED A GUARD, A GUN ON HIM, OFFICER ALVAREZ.
WELL, THE INDIVIDUAL WAS STILL TALKING TO HIM.
HE TAKES OFF THE INDIVIDUAL, TOLD HIM, HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE AT THE SMOKING PIT, WHICH IS A RESTAURANT RIGHT NEXT TO, I MEAN, TO BE RUDE, MY COLLEAGUE AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE GOING TO THE FACETS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GO IN THE FACT THAT IT'S A FULL FLEDGED HEARING.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS JUST THE MOTION ON THIS DISPOSITION, THAT ACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE, IF THEY WANT TO, THEY WERE CHARGED WITH
WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE CASE.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT IS THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE EXPLANATION THAT THIS IS ALL STUFF FROM THE LETTER.
THE OFFICER WAS SAYING, I DON'T EVEN KNOW ENOUGH TO DEFEND MYSELF.
THAT'S WHAT HE SAID IN HIS ARGUMENT.
RIGHT? SO I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAD WHAT HE NEEDED TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
IN THIS CASE, THE DOCUMENT, THIS IS A WALL IN THE NOTICE OF RULING, IS THAT APART IN THE FIRST TWO PAGES OF THE NOTICE OF RULING.
SO EXHIBIT TWO, IT'S TOWARD THE END OF THE DAY.
AND I THINK THE FACTS ARE IMPORTANT JUST TO THE BARE BONES BACK.
SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS LAID OUT IN THE LETTER TO HIM.
OTHERWISE WE WON'T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND THE THREE CHARGES THAT ARE ON THE FIRST PAGE, SHIRKING DUTIES CONDUCT ON BECOMING AN OFFICER AND CARRYING OUT ORDERS.
[00:45:01]
GENERAL ORDERS FROM THE POLICY BOOK THAT WERE REFERRED TO FIREARMS. 1 32 ARREST, 2 0 9 AND PATROL 502 SLASH OH SIX DASH TWO, DR.YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE THE RURAL.
THE OFFICER GETS TO THE SMOKEY PIT RESTAURANT, UM, AND THIS IS ALL AGAIN, IN THE FACT AS HE ROLLS UP, HE DECIDES THAT HE NEEDS TO GET HIS RIFLE, HIS PATROL RIFLE, WHICH IS AR 15, THE SLING ON THE RIFLE GETS WRAPPED AROUND THE HEADREST.
SO HE UNHOOKS THE SLING AND TAKES OFF TO THE FRONT DOOR, HAS AN UNSULLIED WEAPON GOES IN, THERE'S ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL.
THERE'S ANOTHER OFFICER, OFFICER WILLIAMS, OFFICER WILLIAMS GETS TO THE DOOR AND SAYS, HEY, WHO? AND HE JUST CALLS INTO THE RESTAURANT.
HEY, WHO OWNS THE GRAY CAR OUT HERE? ALVAREZ STOPS.
HIM, SAYS, NO, EVERYBODY UP WALKS IN WITH HIS RIFLE.
AND HE SAYS, I WANT EVERYBODY UP.
HE TELLS THE OTHER OFFICER HANDCUFFED, EVERYBODY.
WE'RE GOING TO DETAIN EVERYBODY, PUT THEM IN THE PATROL CARS.
UM, NOBODY ON THE SCENE MATCHED THE DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SO HAPPENED THAT THE OWNER OF THE RESTAURANT WAS SITTING AT THE BAR AND THERE WERE 300 OTHER INDIVIDUALS SITTING AT THE BAR.
THERE WAS AN EMPLOYEE BEHIND THE BAR.
SO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WERE ALL DETAINED AND THEY WERE BROUGHT OUT TO CARS AND PUT IN SQUAD CARS.
THIS IS ALL AGAIN, DETAILED IN THE REPORT WHILE HE WAS ARRESTED OR NOT ARRESTING.
BUT WHILE HE WAS DETAINING THE INDIVIDUALS AND PUTTING THEM IN HANDCUFFS, HE HAD HIS RIFLE, BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE SLING ON IT.
SO IT DESCRIBES HOW HE HAD HIS RIFLE STUCK UP UNDER HIS ARM.
AND AWKWARDLY WAS TRYING TO HANDCUFF INDIVIDUALS.
SOMETIMES IT'S POINTING STRAIGHT UP.
AS HE'S TRYING TO HAND UP INDIVIDUALS, IT'S A DANGEROUS MANEUVER.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT INCIDENTS WHERE OFFICER ALVAREZ HIMSELF, HIS OWN WORDS ARE USED IN THIS REPORT WHERE HE DESCRIBES HIS OWN, UH, USE OF HIS RIFLE AS NON TACTICAL AND EMBARRASSING.
HE EVEN SAID THAT DURING THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HERE, OKAY.
HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THAT HE DID IT.
HE HIMSELF ADMITTED HIS OWN POLICY VIOLATION ABOUT THAT.
SO WHAT IS OUR EVIDENCE? HE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE A DESCRIPTION OF THE EVIDENCE.
BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE IS DESCRIBED IN DETAIL, AND I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE BROAD BRUSH STROKES OF IT.
BUT IN SEVEN PAGES, WE GO THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE.
UM, WHAT WAS SAID AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING THAT'S REGURGITATED, UM, AND HIS ATTORNEY WAS THERE.
HE WAS ALLOWED TO REVIEW THE VIDEO AGAIN AT THAT PREDISPOSE JURY HEARING.
AND HE MADE COMMENTS ON HIS OWN STATEMENTS ABOUT IT AND HOW HIS ACTIONS VIOLATED POLICY INTERVIEWS OF ALL THE WITNESSES THAT WERE INTERVIEWED ABOUT THE CASE POLICIES THAT WERE VIOLATED.
SO IF WE GET TO THE END OF THE NOTICE OF RULING PAGE SEVEN, IT GOES INTO GENERAL ORDER ONE 12, WHICH IS OUR DISCIPLINARY POLICY TWO, THREE, WHICH IS SHIRKING DUTIES.
AND IN THE REPORTS THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT CERTAIN DUTIES WAS ABOUT, ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENED IS HE'S GOT THESE INDIVIDUALS IN THE CAR, A SERGEANT CALLS OUT TO HIM AND SAYS TO HIS PARTNER AND SAYS, WHY DO Y'ALL HAVE THE OWNER OF THAT RESTAURANT IN HANDCUFFS RIGHT NOW DETAINED? HE HAPPENS TO BE A COMMUNITY ACTIVIST.
HIS NAME IS JESSE BASIL, AND HE WORKS WITH THE DEPARTMENT REGULARLY.
RIGHT? AND I DON'T WANT US TO GET INTO NECESSARILY WHAT HE DID AND DID NOT DO.
I JUST WANT THE BOARD TO KNOW WHAT HE RECEIVED, WHEN DID HE EAT? SO THAT WAY HE CAN, WHAT HE, WHAT DID HE RECEIVE? AND I THINK THAT'S THE ULTIMATE QUESTION.
I THINK THEY RECEIVED THE INFORMATION THAT, THAT HE HAD.
HE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF RULING THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY YOU WERE GETTING THIS BECAUSE TWO, THREE SHIRKING DUTIES IS LISTED TO 11.
CONDUCT ON BECOMING IS LISTED THREE SEVEN, AND IT GOES TO THE GENERAL ORDERS.
IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE WHOLE GENERAL ORDER LISTED.
IT SAYS THE SPECIFIC PARAGRAPHS OF THE GENERAL ORDERS THAT HE VIOLATED.
FOR EXAMPLE, DOES IT SAY PAGE EIGHT IN RELATION TO THE CHARGE, THE CHARGES OF CONDUCT IS ALL DESCRIBED.
AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE SEVEN UNDER DARK DEPARTMENTAL POLICY, AND I'M GOING TO READ THIS PART, BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE IT TIES IT TOGETHER.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE DESCRIBED ABOVE SPECIFICALLY YOUR FAILURE TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLAINANT AND TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE SCENE.
AND WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT GOING TO GO, AS THE REASON THAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS THERE WAS TWO INDIVIDUALS AFTER THAT HE GOT A CALL FROM THE SERGEANT.
HE JUST SAID, EVERYBODY GO, YOU'RE GOOD.
WELL, TWO OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAD OUTSTANDING WARRANTS AND HE DIDN'T RUN THEIR LICENSES TO FIGURE IT OUT.
HE HAD THEM DETAINED, BUT HE DIDN'T DO THAT.
[00:50:01]
SO TWO OF THEM NEEDED TO BE ARRESTED.SO THAT WAS THE FAILURE TO, UM, OBTAIN ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE INDIVIDUALS YOU DETAINED AT THE SCENE, YOUR USE OF RIFLE DURING THE INCIDENT, WHICH IS DETAILED OUT IN THE NARRATIVE, WHICH FAILED TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES REGARDING THE USE OF FIREARMS. AND THEN THE FIREARMS POLICIES ARE LISTED IN THE NEXT PAGES, AS WELL AS YOUR USE OF RESTRAINTS DURING THE INCIDENT, WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES REGARDING DETENTION AND ARREST IS CONTRARY TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT IF WE GO BACK TO WHAT'S REQUIRED IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE EVIDENCE, THE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY THAT HE IS REQUESTING IS NOT REQUIRED IN LAW.
WHAT WAS REQUIRED AT LAW AND EXPLANATION OF THE EVIDENCE? HE HAD A THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF THE EVIDENCE.
HE WAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD WHAT POLICIES HE'S VIOLATED.
HE WAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION UNDER DEPARTMENTAL POLICY OF THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT AND HOW THAT VIOLATED POLICY WAS HE GIVEN A, UH, EXPLANATION OF THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT THAT RELATED TO THAT DISCIPLINE RIGHT THERE.
I MEAN, I JUST, I JUST READ IT TO YOU WROTE IT OUT THAT YOU HAD PARAGRAPH SEVEN ON PAGE SEVEN IN FRONT OF LOOKING AT IT.
BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN PARAGRAPH SEVEN IS ADEQUATE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO FEEL THAT THEY GOT THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION.
AND YEAH, ONCE THIS IS MORE THAN MEETS THE DO DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS ARE MORE OF A MINIMUM STANDARD.
WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR NOW, UM, IF THEY DON'T THINK THIS NEEDS MINIMUM DUE PROCESS, THAT'S WRONG, IT DOES EASILY, THIS IS MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN REQUIRED AT THE SUPREME COURT.
THE US S ANY QUESTIONS FOR NOT AS LONG AS YOU CAN ANSWER THAT HE WAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION FOR EACH CHARGE, WHICH YOU'RE SAYING THIS THOUGH IS THEN, BUT EVEN IF HE CAN'T AND WE HAVE A HEARING AND THAT TAKES GHETTOS ANYWAY.
SO I'M ONLY THAT WE DENY THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
BUT IF IT'S STILL CONTAINED ALL THE VEGAS, WE GOT A SECOND.
SO, WELL, I'M WATCHING THAT MR. SMITH SHAKE HIS HEAD, TOM.
UM, DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ONE? WELL, I JUST, THE REASON WHY IS THIS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU, MR. ALVAREZ? WHAT COMES HERE.
BUT, BUT AGAIN, IF IT'S NOT, WE'RE GOING TO HOLD A HEARING, RIGHT? SO WE GONNA TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE.
MR. RAINS DID, WAS BRING THEM A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE FACTS.
AND UNFORTUNATELY MR. ALVAREZ, NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF BECAUSE HE'S NOW IN QUANTICO, VIRGINIA AND FBI ACADEMY.
SO UNFORTUNATELY HE WON'T BE HAVING A HEARING, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS SO, UH, LACKING IN THE DUE PROCESS PART OF THIS, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE.
I WANT TO SAY, SHE'S FINALLY BEEN BROUGHT UP AND WILL BE BROUGHT UP AND I'M SURE WHOEVER WINS, THIS WILL BE APPEALING TO THE 19TH AND OR TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT, BUT LET'S, HE BRINGS UP THE FACTS, BUT HE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, BUT HE TELLS YOU CERTAIN FACTS AGAIN.
AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THESE.
THE EVIDENCE HE TALKING ABOUT, THE EVIDENCE IS NOT EXPLAINED YOU HAVEN'T.
SO WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR THAT? AND THAT'S WHAT THE CHIEF LAX IS.
THIS IS AGAIN, THURGOOD MARSHALL TALKED ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WHEN I STARTED THIS WITH, BECAUSE SHE WAS THE PRIVATE MAN OF HIS FAMILY, HIS CHILDREN, UP FOOD AND OTHER THINGS.
AND THIS HAS TO BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND THIS LACK OF EXPLANATION IS THE PROBLEM.
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT IT WAS 2, 5, 2 THREES, AND SHE'LL START ENDORSING THEM.
AND I'M TALKING ABOUT GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME, IT MEANS THE TWO SERIES TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, KIND OF ALL THE THINGS HE WAS WORKING BY HIMSELF WITH A GUY FROM THE OPPOSITE SQUAD, BECAUSE IT WAS A FRIDAY.
[00:55:01]
HAD SOMEBODY GO IN THERE THAT THE GUY WAS ALLEGEDLY ROBBED WHEN HE PASSED BY, HE HAD SEEN THIS, THESE INDIVIDUALS BY THIS CAR, AND THAT'S WHY HE WENT IN THERE AND THEY TALK ABOUT THE VIDEO.HE DOES, HE GET MITCH TO THE STRAP, BUT EVERYBODY CAN IMPROVE.
BUT HE ALSO TALKS ABOUT WHEN HE GOES IN, THERE IS 45 MINUTES.
HE TREATED EVERYBODY WITH RESPECT, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL BROUGHT OUT OF THE HEARING.
BUT THESE ARE THE FACTS THAT WERE BROUGHT IN WHEN THE VIDEO WAS BROUGHT IN.
HE, WHEN HE HANDLED IT AND WHEN HE GOT THE PHONE CALL ABOUT THIS GUY BEING AN ADVOCATE FOR THE CITY AND SO FORTH AND REALIZED THE ISSUE WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, AND IT STARTED IN, HE KIND OF TOUCH THIS.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE THEN UP AND DISAPPEARED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
INSTEAD OF IT FURTHER, EVEN THESE PEOPLE, UH, DETAINED WHILE HE WAS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.
IF THE COMPLAINANT OR THE ALLEGED VICTIM, WASN'T GOING TO BE THERE, HE SAID, THEN I'M LETTING THEM GO.
I'M NOT GOING TO DETAIN HIM ANY LONGER.
THAT'S WHY THEY WERE LIKE OVER THERE.
THAT EXPLAINED WHY SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF WASN'T DONE.
BUT AGAIN, HE DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT AND EXPLANATION.
I THINK IT'S REQUIRED OF THE CHIEF TO SAY, THIS IS THE INFORMATION I PROVIDE AND WHY I DID WHAT I DID.
AND THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT WAS THINKING, HERE'S THE VIDEO.
AND YOU SEE, ONCE I RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION, INSTEAD OF DETAINING CITIZENS, LONGER THAN I HAVE TO THE ALLEGED VICTIM BEING EDITED, HEY, WE'RE TRYING TO CONTACT HIM.
HE WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND WITH ANSWER A PHONE.
AND HE SAID, WELL, I DON'T HAVE A VICTIM.
I KNOW I ALREADY HAVE A CRIME.
I'M GOING TO LET THE CITIZENS GO.
HE, HE ENDED THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE WAS MORE TO IT THAN JUST THAT SHORT.
BUT IT'S ALL IN HERE BECAUSE THIS WAS ALL PART OF THE RECORD.
AND THE VIDEO FOR THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
MR. ROBINSON, IF I MAY IS YOU NEED TO HAVE AN EXPLANATION THAT YOU CAN'T JUST, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, HIS OWN EXHIBITS, IT'S THE SAME THING GOING INTO THE HEARING THAT YOU, YOU COMING OUT OF THE GAME, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OF THAT EVIDENCE AND OR WHAT THE OFFICER SAID AND SAID, THIS SAID X, THIS SAID Y BUT I DETERMINED THAT.
THE PROBLEM IS NEW A CHRIST AND THE TEAM'S OFFICE.
DISAGREE, SIT ON THIS COMMITTEE.
THERE'S HONESTLY SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT LOUDERMILL REQUIRES FROM ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
I'D MUCH RATHER HAVE THE JDC 19 DTC DECIDE.
COURSE-CORRECT ALMOST THE RADIUS.
SO, AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO DENY A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
I UNDERSTAND VOLUNTEER CITIZENS TRYING TO DO ANYTHING.
MR. PRESCOTT BEEN KNOWN YOU FOR A, QUITE A FEW YEARS AND A HALF, BUT THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ATTORNEY THERE THAT CAN GIVE YOU ADVICE AND CAN DO THAT.
AND SO LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THE ONLY ISSUE THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE IS THAT THE NOTICE OF RULING STATE IS THAT FAIR.
THAT IT'S INSUFFICIENT FOR THE NOTICE OF RULING A REGURGITATION OF THE NOTICE TO HAVE A HEARING.
AND THEN THERE WAS A RULING DOESN'T VARY AND DOESN'T GIVE AN EXPLANATION OF IT EVIDENCE AND WHY YOU DETERMINED TO SUSTAIN OR NOT SUSTAIN THOSE.
SO DURING THE INVESTIGATION, NO COMPLAINT, NO, FOR THIS UP UNTIL THE HEARING, THERE'S NO ISSUE.
RIGHT? AND I'M JUST DOING THIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BOARD.
DURING THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATION, THERE WAS NO COMPLAINTS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION.
AT THE ACTUAL PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THERE'S NO COMPLAINTS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION.
YOU CORRECT? THE ISSUE COMES AT THE NOTICE OF ROY, CORRECT.
OKAY, GUYS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MR. ROBINSON DOES HAVE A VALID POINT.
WE GAVE HIM REASONS, MR. DEWEY SAYING THEY DIDN'T GIVE HIM REASONS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SUFFICIENT REASONS.
I THINK THAT'S A FACT ISSUE THAT SHOULD GO TO THE APPEAL.
NOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT'D BE DIFFERENT IF HE LITERALLY DID NOT RECEIVE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT, RIGHT.
HE DID RECEIVE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT RISES TO THE LEVEL.
AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT A FULL EVIDENTIARY HERE.
AND THAT'S PLUS A LOT OF MILLS SAYS WRITTEN ORAL.
YES, BUT STATE LAW, THEN IT COMES INTO PLAY.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM COMPLETE RE RE COMPLETE WRITTEN REASONS AND WRITING, UH, ABOUT WHY YOU'RE DISCIPLINING.
HE GAVE HIM THE NOTICE OF RULING.
I'M NOT MAKING ANY OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOOD REASONS BATTERIES IS THAT FOR YOU TO APPEAL.
RIGHT? BUT IN TERMS OF, DID HE ACTUALLY GIVE HIM SOMETHING, HE DID GIVE HIM A NOTICE
[01:00:01]
OF RULING.I JUST THINK THIS SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THAT DECISION.
WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
UH, NOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY APPEAL IT, THAT'S CERTAINLY THEIR CHOICE, BUT WE DO HAVE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AND THE WAY THAT NO WORKS, WHAT IT REALLY IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
IT'S TALKING ABOUT MOSTLY THE PREDETERMINATION OF PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING THAT IS THE REAL CRUX OF THE WHOLE SUPREME COURT DECISION.
AND THE WHOLE, WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS BEFORE YOU MAKE A DISCIPLINARY DECISION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
THAT IS THE OVERARCHING THEME OF LOUDERMILL IS THAT YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
MR. DEWEY SEEMS TO BE TELLING US THAT HE DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
NOW, IN TERMS OF THE NOTICE OF RULING, YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT, IS THAT THE APPEAL? I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE HIM WANTING THERE TO BE MORE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY.
SO THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE SHORTER HEARINGS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
THAT IS SOMETHING WE'LL ADDRESS AT THE HEARING.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT HE GAVE HIM, THE REASONS SEEMS LIKE YOU DID.
THEY JUST MAY NOT ULTIMATELY BE GOOD ONES.
UM, BUT YOU NEED A SECOND OR THERE IS A SECOND BY MR. WILLIAMS. AND I GUESS WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL OFF OF THAT.
WHICH MOVES US ON TO, UM, CONSIDER
[13. Consider Motion to Reschedule Next Meeting to September 19, 2022]
A MOTION TO RESCHEDULE FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO SEPTEMBER, SEPTEMBER 19.I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE, WE RESCHEDULE IT TO THE 19TH DUE TO, I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN.
WE JUST REMOVED SOMETHING ELSE ALREADY EARLIER TODAY, MEETING BACK.
NO, NO I'M SAYING WE ARE RESCHEDULED.
SO I GUESS THAT WOULD MEAN FOR THE REQUEST FOR NUMBER NINE, OCTOBER 24TH, WE WOULD CHANGE TO THE 19TH IF THIS MOTION PASSES, CORRECT? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
I MADE THE MOTION SECOND BY MR. ROBINSON.
SEPTEMBER 19TH IS OUR, THANK YOU.
DO YOU WANT TO WASHINGTON DC? Y'ALL TAKING YOUR TIME GETTING THE NUMBER 14.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO SAVE MOMENT, WHICH LEADS TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS A GERMAN.
IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
SO WHEREVER, WHEREVER GERMAN, THE TIME IS 1155.
BRANDON, WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO WITH THIS.