[00:00:01]
ORDER MIKE.I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS, UM, THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD TO ORDER IT IS 10 35.
[1. Roll Call]
CAN YOU CALL, HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.UM, START WITH MR. PRESS ROBINSON PRESENT SERGEANT TRINA DORSEY, MR. JOHN SMITH PRESENT MR. BRANDON WILLIAMS PRESENT OF COURSE MYSELF, UH, JOSHUA DARRIS PRESENT.
UH, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THIS OPPORTUNITY.
[~ Opportunity for Public Comment ~]
PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME, COME TO MIKE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CURRENTLY? I'M SORRY, CAN I, WHICH I AM CURRENTLY, UH, AGAIN, A, UM, AN ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE THAT'S ON THAT LIST, UH, WHEN THIS OCCURS THEN THAT, THAT CANDIDATE, IF THAT CANDIDATE IS ALLOWED TO TEST, UH, OR THE WORDING IS CHANGED, UH, THAT CANDIDATE WILL BE ALLOWED TO JUMP, UH, THAT POSITION.UH, IN ADDITION, THIS HAS, UH, THIS HAS CHANGED.
THIS WAS, THIS LAW WAS PUT INTO EFFECT ON APRIL OF 2021.
UH, IT DISTURBS ME THAT THIS IS BROUGHT UP A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS, UH, AFTER THIS LAW WAS PUT INTO EFFECT, UH, IN WHICH THE CANDIDATE WAS PLACED IN THE DIVISION WITHOUT A CERTIFYING SCORE.
A TEST WAS GIVEN IN NOV IN NOVEMBER OF 2021.
IT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, UH, FOR APPROVAL.
HIS TEST WAS APPROVED IN DECEMBER OF 2021, AND HE'S CERTIFIED THE, THE LAW CHANGED IN APRIL OF 2020, UH, IN APRIL OF 2022.
UH, THIS CANDIDATE THEN WAS APPROVED, UH, AND CERTIFIED IN THE DIVISION IN JU ON JULY THE SECOND OF 2022, UH, WHICH AT THAT POINT IN TIME, UH, THE CANDIDATE DID NOT HAVE FOUR YEARS IN THE DIVISION, WHICH WAS REQUIRED BY CIVIL SERVICE LAWS THAT WAS SET FORWARD.
UH, AGAIN, I AM DISTURBED BY IT AND I'M, I, I, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ADMINISTRATION IS PUSHING SO HARD, UH, TO TRY TO GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THIS RULING AT THIS TIME, UH, TO TRY TO GET THIS CANDIDATE TESTED.
UH, AND I, YOU, MY COMMENTS, SO LET ME SPEAK ON IT.
I CAN CLARIFY SOME OF IT THOUGH.
SO ON THE FIRST ONE, PEDRO IS APPLICATION.
WE'RE GONNA REJECT HIS APPLICATION BECAUSE HE DOESN'T MEET THE CURRENT QUALIFICATION.
HE DOESN'T HAVE FOUR YEARS IN A DIVISION, SO HIS APPLICATION WILL BE REJECTED TWO ON THE NEW VERBIAGE.
THERE'S THE CHIEF CONTROLS THAT HE WILL BE INTRODUCING THE NEW VERBIAGE TO CHANGE THE RULE.
AND, UH, ON THREE, WE CLEARED UP THIS, THIS ISSUE,
[00:05:02]
WHENEVER JOEL BROUGHT IT BEFORE THE BOARD, HE WASN'T PUT INTO DIVISION OFFICIALLY UNTIL JANUARY 2ND.HE WAS SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT CAUSE YOU WERE OUT ON MILITARY LEAVE.
SO HE WASN'T OFFICIALLY IN THERE UNTIL JANUARY 2ND.
YOU WERE SAYING HE WAS PUT A DIVISION, CORRECT? SUBSTITUTE APPOINTMENT, UNDERSTOOD, UH, DIDN'T HAVE A VIABLE SCORE.
IT WAS GIVEN A, A TEST NOVEMBER APPROVED THAT'S RIGHT, DECEMBER AND THEN PLACED IN THE VISION, UH, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WHICH YOU CERTIFIED.
SO MY, MY, WHAT DISTURBS ME IS THE FACT THAT WE ALLOW THIS TO OCCUR OVER A PERIOD OF A YEAR IN FOUR MONTHS.
AND NOW WE'RE ADAMANT ABOUT TRYING TO PUSH THIS THROUGH, TO ALLOW THIS CANDIDATE TO GO AHEAD AND TEST.
AND I UNDERSTAND WE, UH, I UNDERSTAND THE SHEER FACT THAT NOW WE'RE GONNA REJECT HIS APPLICATION, BUT WHAT IS A VERBIAGE GONNA SAY? YOU'LL FIND OUT JUST A FEW MINUTES.
WE CAN WE HOLD IT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT? YEAH.
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT? I'LL SEE.
CHIEF, YOU WANNA SAY SO? WELL, I, I WAS BECAUSE IT WAS YOUR MATTER.
UH, JUST COMMENT ON LAST, LAST YEAR.
SO WHAT MR. ROBINSON IS SUGGESTING CHIEF IS THAT WE SHOULD TAKE IT UP WHEN THE AGENDA ITEM ACTUALLY COMES UP.
THAT ENDS OUR PUBLIC COMMENT, UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK THIS TIME.
[2. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda]
ON TO ITEM, UH, NUMBER TWO, TO CONSIDER THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.I, YEAH, THE AGENDA THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, I MAKE A MOTION.
IS THERE A MOTION? WHAT'S YOUR MOTION QUESTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE AUGUST 22ND.
THE, UH, SEPTEMBER TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 19TH AGENDA TODAY.
THAT'S THE MINUTES YOU'RE ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.
MY, MY QUESTION TO THE AGENDA.
SO WE HAVE NO CHANGES TO REVISION.
WELL, THE ONLY QUESTION ABOUT THE AGENDA IS I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE HAD A HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING AND I DON'T SEE IT ON THE AGENDA AT ALL FOR B WATSON.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT MATTERS, UH, SETTLE.
HE CAN CONFIRM IT, BUT THEY, THEY SETTLE THAT MATTER.
WILL YOU HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND? UH, MR. PRESS ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from August 2022, regular meeting ]
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 22ND.AND YOU HAVE THE, UH, MINUTES IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. PRESS AND A SECOND FOR MR. SMITH.
[4. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms]
A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT THE PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS I HAVE HERE.AND ALSO I THINK, UM, I HAVE A BUNCH PLEASE.
[5. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Applications: Assistant Chief of Training – Fire, Training Officer - Fire, Chief Information Technology Specialist - Fire]
ON TO ITEM.NUMBER FIVE, CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT APPLICATIONS OR ASSISTANT TREAT.
CHIEF OF TRAINING, FIRE TRAINING, OFFICER FIRE, CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST.
WE GOT TO DO ONE SEPARATE CAUSE WE GOT FOUR APPLICANTS APPLIED FOR TRAINING.
I MOVE, WE, WE APPROVE THOSE AND WE HAVE THREE, FOUR APPLICANTS APPLIED FOR ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR TRAINING OFFICER.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE THREE AND REJECT ONE.
WHO, WHAT? JOHN MILLER'S APPLICATION.
WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE REJECTION.
CAUSE HE DOESN'T MEET THE CURRENT QUALIFICATION, WHICH IS FOUR YEARS.
AND I ALSO HAVE TWO APPLICANTS FOR CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SPECIAL TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST TO APPROVE.
UH, GOING BACK TO TRAINING OFFICERS.
HOW MANY WAS IT FOR AS WELL? FOUR.
SO, AND THE FIRST ONE WAS, UH, THE ASSISTANT WAS FOUR, BUT ONE DISQUALIFICATION.
I OBTAINED A MOTION AT THIS TIME.
[00:10:01]
BY MR. ROBINSONS.[6. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Results of Examinations – Police Communications Officer II.]
NUMBER SIX.TO CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT THE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION FOR POLICE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS TO, UH, TO HEAR AND CONSIDER THE BAT ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST TO INITIATE THE PROCESS.
SO FIRE, JUST FIRE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS TOO.
DO WE HAVE ANY POLICE COMMUNICATION OFFICER? YEAH.
DID Y'ALL MEET REQUIREMENT? YES THEY DO.
UH, ONE DID NOT SHOW, SO ONE WAS DISQUALIFIED.
SO WE HAVE SEVEN QUALIFIED MOVE APPROVAL.
UM, HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM PRESS.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, ONE SECOND.
AND THAT SECOND WAS BY MS. DORSON.
[7. Hear/Consider BRFD Request to initiate process to change verbiage in certain job classifications.]
NUMBER SEVEN TO HERE AND CONSIDER BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO INITIATE THE PROCESS TO CHANGE VERBIAGE IN CERTAIN JOB APPLICATIONS.YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS? YES, SIR.
SO, UH, THANK Y'ALL FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME SPEAK ON THIS THIS MORNING.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WITH THIS LAST APPOINTMENT TO THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF TRAINING.
THERE WAS SOME VERBIAGE THAT WAS IN THE DOCUMENTS.
THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE BODY TO CHANGE.
IT WAS PUT IN EFFECT THAT EVERY PROMOTIONAL POSITION WITHIN A COMPETITIVE CLASSIFICATION, UH, FOR FIRE INSPECTOR, TWO ASSISTANT CHIEF FIRE INVESTIGATOR, ASSISTANT HAZMAT, CHIEF ASSISTANT, CHIEF TRAINING, OFFICER FIRE COMMUNICATIONS, TWO CHIEF OF THE FIRE APPARATUS TECHNICIAN, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF SPECIAL SERVICES AND CHIEF SAFETY OFFICER ALL HAD TO HAVE FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE IN THAT POSITION PRIOR TO BE ELIGIBLE, TO TAKE A PROMOTIONAL EXAM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
AND WE NOTICED AT THAT TIME THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WAS ALREADY IN THAT POSITION WAS ALWAYS THE INTENT AND ASSUMPTION THAT IF YOU WAS IN A POSITION PRIOR TO THAT, YOU WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
IT DID NOT COME UP TO MY ATTENTION.
DIDN'T SEE IT UNTIL IT COME OUT.
AND WE KNEW IT WAS AN EFFECT WHEN IT COME, COME TO BE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE ASKED OUT WHAT THE UNION BODY, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE UNION BODY TO BE, UH, ADOPTED BEFORE IT EVER COME TO Y'ALL BACK IN 2021, WHERE IT WOULD NOT AFFECT NOBODY THAT JUST VERBIAGE DID NOT GET PUT INTO THE, THE LANGUAGE OF, UH, THE LAW.
SO THAT'S WHY WE, WE MET WITH THE UNION BODY TO GO BACK TO THE UNION SINCE THIS IS WHAT THEY VOTED ON WITH INTENT AND THE UNION PRESIDENT IS HERE.
UM, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO CLEAR THE VERBIAGE UP.
SO WHAT WAS, THERE WAS NOT WHAT EVERYBODY WITH INTENT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.
AND THIS WAS, IT GOT BROUGHT UP BECAUSE IT HAPPENED NOW, THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME IT'S AFFECTED ANYBODY.
SO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE FOR MR. FOR MR. LEONARD? YEAH.
THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT NOW, MR. LEONARD IS ON THE ELIGIBILITY LIST TO MAKE AN ASSISTANT CHIEF OF TRAINING ONCE, UH, AN APPOINTMENT GUY RETIRES.
BUT FROM MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S TWO OTHER GENTLEMEN AHEAD OF HIM ON THE LIST.
NOW THERE'S A LOT OF RUMORS ARE GOING AROUND OF PEOPLE RETIRING OFF INJURED, WHATNOT.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT ALL WILL PLAY OUT WHEN THAT TIME COMES, BUT THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE WILL NOT AFFECT HIS ELIGIBILITY.
SIR, THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE WILL NOT AFFECT HIS ELIGIBILITY.
IT WILL AFFECT HIS ELIGIBILITY.
HE WILL STILL BE ON ELIGIBILITY LIST.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT WE'VE COME TO Y'ALL ON THIS ISSUE WITHIN THAT DIVISION OF THIS PERSON'S APPOINTMENT.
IF YOU RECALL, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, UH, MONTH.
AND ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ADMINISTRATION IS FIX SOMETHING THAT WAS BROKE.
[00:15:01]
TO OUR ATTENTION.SO, BUT THE PERSON, THE PERSON THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE IS GOING TO BE, THIS IS THE PERSON WHO'S APPLICATION IS ABOUT TO BE REJECTED, CORRECT? YES.
MA'AM HE WAS IN THE POSITION BECAUSE HE DOESN'T QUALIFY.
HE WAS IN THE POSITION PRIOR TO THIS BEING, HE WAS ACTUALLY STARTED, UH, HE GOT APPOINTED JANUARY THE SECOND OF 2021, THE, THE RULE OF FOUR YEARS TO TAKE THE ELIGIBILITY DID NOT GO IN EFFECT TILL APRIL THE 26TH.
SO THREE MONTHS LATER HE WAS TOLD SOMETHING BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
HE TOOK THEIR WORD CUZ FOR HIM IT WOULD'VE MADE HIM NO SENSE TO GO INTO THAT POSITION.
CUZ IF HE WOULD'VE GONE PROMOTE WHY GO, HE COULD HAVE STAYED IN SUPPRESSION AND MOVED UP THROUGH THE RANKS.
SO HE CHOSE TO COME INTO THE TRAINING DIVISION, KNOWING THAT HE WOULD MAKE SOME PROMOTIONS, THE RULE CHANGED THREE MONTHS LATER, READY TO REJECT HIS APPLICATION.
SO ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR MAYBE THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD.
SO MR. PEDRO REMAINS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS, UM, THIS POSITION, CORRECT? YES, YES SIR.
HE, HE HAS HIS YEARS OF SERVICE WITHIN OUR TRAINING DIVISION DOES A VERY GOOD JOB OF TRAINING OUR PEOPLE.
IT'S NOTHING AGAINST MR. LEONARD.
MM-HMM
OF, OF WHAT WAS TOLD TO THE PEOPLE, HOW THIS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IS NOT HOW IT READS TODAY.
IS IT A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS LATER AS MR. LEONARD SAID HE'S 100% CORRECT.
UM, IS THIS VERBIAGE CHANGED JUST FOR THIS JOB CLASSIFICATION OR IS IT FOR ANY JOB CLASSIFICATION THAT HAS SIMILAR, SIR, I'M ASKING.
I, I THINK MR. SMITH SHOULD HAVE YOUR, A LETTER THAT I'VE, UH, COPIED.
I'M ASKING TO CHANGE FIRE INSPECTOR TWO.
I GOT ASSISTANT CHIEF OF FIRE INVESTIGATIONS, ASSISTANT HAZMAT, CHIEF ASSISTANT, CHIEF TRAINING, OFFICER FIRE COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICER TWO, CHIEF FIRE APPARATUS, TECHNICIAN, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF SPECIAL SERVICES, CHIEF FIRE SAFETY OFFICER.
ALL THOSE ARE POSITIONS THAT, THAT, THAT THIS CHANGED.
AND THERE'S SOME MORE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME TALK TO YOU IN A MINUTE ABOUT THAT WAS NOT DONE ALSO, UH, IT SHOULD HAVE AFFECTED ALL DIVISIONS AND THERE WAS JUST SOME THINGS THAT WAS LEFT OFF.
WHY WAS IT LEFT OFF? THAT WAS PRIOR TO MY TIME IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT WAS DONE AGAIN.
WE'RE HERE JUST TO TRY TO FIX WHAT WAS NOT WASN'T DONE.
WHAT WAS TOLD WAS GONNA HAPPEN.
SHOULD I SAY SO, MR. LEONARD WERE THOSE EXPLANATIONS, ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THEM OR YOU STILL HAVE OBJECTIONS? I'M STILL CONCERNED.
CAUSE AGAIN, YOU HAVE COME TO MIND, PLEASE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, I'M STILL CONCERNED BECAUSE YOU HAD A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS TO MAKE THIS DECISION.
THIS VERBIAGE DID NOT JUST CHANGE YESTERDAY, BUT HOW, HOW DOES THAT ALLOW? HOW DOES THIS VERBIAGE AFFECT YOUR POSITION AND WHAT YOU MAY ACQUIRE? WELL, UN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VERBIAGE IS, BUT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO, UH, PUT FORWARD.
IT ALLOWED TO SIT FOR A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS AND DEPENDED UPON WHAT THE VERBIAGE IS.
THIS GENTLEMAN MAY BE ALLOWED TO TEST.
AND ONCE HE'S ALLOWED TO TEST, THEN HIS SENIORITY IN THE DEPARTMENT, NOT IN THE DIVISION WILL ALLOW HIM TO OVERSTEP THE CURRENT TRAINING OFFICERS IN THAT DIVISION.
THAT IS WHAT'S CONCERNING BECAUSE THIS IS J THIS, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME IT'S CHANGED ONCE BEFORE.
ALRIGHT, IT'S CHANGED ONCE BEFORE AND NOW WE'RE DOING IT AGAIN.
ARE WE GONNA CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME THING? EVERY TIME SOMEBODY GETS IN THE DIVISION THAT WE DON'T WANT, THAT WE WANT TO BE IN, BE PROMOTED TO ANOTHER, ANOTHER RANK.
ARE WE GONNA HAVE THIS ISSUE AGAIN? AND THIS IS WHAT'S CONCERNING, CONCERNING ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO APPROACH THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD TO GET SOMETHING CHANGED? BECAUSE SIMPLY WE DON'T LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT'S IN THAT POSITION TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD.
I'LL BE LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN IN THERE SINCE 2012.
I KNEW I WANTED TO GO IN TRAINING.
THIS GENTLEMAN JUST GOT IN TRAINING AND NOW THIS GENTLEMAN WAS PROMISED A POSITION AND NOW HE'S GONNA JUMP EVERYBODY THAT CAME IN THAT POSITION AND STAYED IN THAT POSITION IN TRAINING FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
AND HE'S GONNA JUMP CLEAN OVER THEM BECAUSE HE'S GOT SENIORITY BECAUSE HE'S GOT SENIORITY THAT'S RIGHT IN THE DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT'S THE WAY, THAT'S THE WAY IT ALL.
THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE, WE WORK SENIORITY.
WELL WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE FOUGHT FIRES BACK IN THE SEVENTIES AND THE EIGHTIES AND WE DON'T DO IT LIKE THAT ANYMORE.
WE HAVE A CERTAIN LAW BY THAT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? WHAT I MEAN IS WE HAVE LAWS THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE.
[00:20:01]
ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UPHELD TO THOSE LAWS.AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, AND WE ARE BECAUSE WE REJECTED HIS APPLICATION.
BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING NOW WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE RIGHT HERE.
I'M THE FIRE CHIEF BOARD VERBIAGE.
I, HE HAS NOT PROMISED A JOB THAT HE WAS GONNA MAKE ASSISTANT CHIEF.
HE GONNA MAKE WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, THE CHIEF JUST MENTIONED THAT HE WAS EXPECTED TO GO IN THAT POSITION, GO IN THAT, GO, GO IN THE TRAINING DIVISION AND GO TO THAT POINT.
THIS IS WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTENT RIGHT HERE.
WASN'T YOUR INTENT TO MAKE ASSISTANT CHIEF WHEN YOU WENT IN THAT DIVISION AND I'VE BEEN IN THAT DIVISION THOUSAND 12 SINCE 2012, THAT'S CORRECT.
ALL YOU, YOUR INTENT WAS TO MAKE ASSISTANT CHIEF IN THERE.
DOES, DOES CHANGING THIS VERBIAGE AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE THE TEST AND MAKE THE PROMOTION.
DOES THAT STOP YOU FROM MAKING ASSISTANT CHIEF? IT'S ALL ACCORDING TO WHAT THE VERBIAGE IS.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT APPROVING HIM.
SO THE VERBIAGE THAT WE'RE INTENDING TO ADD TO THESE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, IT DON'T JUST APPLY TO ASSISTANT CHIEF TRAINING OFFICER IS CLEARING IT UP BETWEEN ALL OF THESE THAT ARE LISTED HERE, RIGHT ON THE PAPER I JUST GAVE YOU.
MM-HMM
THAT'S THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING UPFRONT.
WELL, HE COULD STILL MAKE THE PROMOTION THOUGH.
THAT'S WHY YOU CIRCUMVENT A LAW.
WE'RE CHANGING THE VERBIAGE TO CIRCUMVENT A LAW.
I'VE BEEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR OVER 27 YEARS.
UNDERSTAND HOW THINGS WORK WHEN LAWS ARE PUT IN PLACE, WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THOSE LAWS.
BUT WHEN WE DON'T LIKE THE LAWS THAT PUT, PUT IN PLACE, WE BRING AMENDMENT TO THE TABLE.
THAT'S WHAT WE DOING RIGHT NOW.
BUT IN SOME CASES IT DOESN'T MAKE SOME THINGS, RIGHT.
AGAIN, I'VE BEEN IN THAT DIVISION SINCE 2012.
OTHER MEMBERS OF MY DIVISION BEEN IN THERE, BEEN IN THAT DIVISION LONG, LONG ENOUGH, THEY QUALIFY THEY'RE ON THAT TEST.
AND THIS IS THE, THIS IS WHAT OUR ADMINISTRATION BRING TO THE TABLE YEARS.
WHEN YOU WENT IN THAT DIVISION, SIR, DID YOU HAVE 10 YEARS WHEN YOU WENT INTO THAT DIVISION, THAT LAW WASN'T IN PLACE, THEN I KNOW IT WASN'T BUT CORRECT.
TALK ABOUT THAT FIRST, THE LAW WASN'T THAT'S YOU PLACE? WHENEVER JOHN MILLER WENT INTO TRAINING ALSO, SIR, THE LAW WASN'T IN PLACE WHEN HE WENT IN THERE JANUARY 2ND, BUT THE UNDER, BUT, BUT HE WAS, HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LAW WAS GETTING READY TO CHANGE HOW HE WAS IN, IN DIDN'T PERTAIN TO HIM IN ANY WAY.
WE ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT LIKE WAS IN NO, WE, WE ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT WHEN A FEW MINUTES AGO, WE JUST EXPLAINED THAT I'M NOT INCLINED THAT I'M NOT I'M SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT INCLINED TO ARGUE WITH A BOARD MEMBER ON SOMETHING THAT THEY ALREADY HAD THE INFORMATION ON.
IF WE GOT A CROSS EXAMINE, WE GO TO 19 JDC POINT BLANK.
WE, WE AS YOU'RE, SIR, YOU'RE SPEAKING ON WHETHER OR NOT HE KNEW IN JANUARY 2ND THAT THE LAW, THE RULES WERE FIXING A CHANGE AND AFFECT HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD TAKE THE PROMOTION.
ANYWAY, WOULD YOU HAVE TAKEN A PROMOTION IF KNOWING THAT YOU WASN'T GONNA BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE ASSISTANT CHIEF'S TEST.
SEE, I, I HAVE SOMETHING CALLED INTEGRITY.
IF I KNOW I HAD PEOPLE IN FRONT OF ME THAT EARN IT, THAT'S A DIFFERENCE.
AND YOU CAN ASK ANYBODY IN THE DEPARTMENT.
SO, SO THE DIFFERENCE CARE, IF SO, APPARENTLY THE PERSON JOHN MILLER WHO'S IN THE POSITION MEETS THE 10 YEAR STANDARD, RIGHT? CORRECT.
BUT HE DOES NOT MEET THE FOUR YEAR STANDARD.
AS IT IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, AS IT WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THAT'S WHY WE REJECTED HIS APPLICATION.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT OF WHICH YOU, YOU ARE UPSET BECAUSE HE'S ALLOWED TO, IT'S NOT THE SENIORITY BECAUSE HE HAS THE NUMBER OF YEARS.
WE'RE NOT EVEN, THAT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
SO GETTING CALL FOR THE TEST, WE JUST TRYING TO CHANGE THE VERBAGE TO AFFECT ALL OF THESE POSITIONS, NOT JUST CHIEF TRAINING OFFICER, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLEAR HOW THIS AFFECTS MR. LEONARD, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
[00:25:01]
TIME, RIGHT.AND I'M LAY, I UNDERSTAND HOW CAN DO IT.
WHAT IT APPEARS MR. LEONARD IS, IS UPSET ABOUT.
AND I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, IS THAT AT THE POINT IN WHICH WHAT HE'S ANTICIPATING THAT AFTER WE CHANGE THE VERBIAGE, THEY'LL CALL FOR THE EXAM AGAIN, AND THEN MR. MILLER WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE THE EXAM.
AND THEN WHEN MR. MILLER IS, YOU KNOW, PRESUMABLY PASSES THE EXAM, THEN HE'S OUT OF THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKED.
SO THE DECISION THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE IS, OKAY, HOW DO WE HANDLE IT? I GET THE CHIEF'S POSITION.
HE'S SAYING, LOOK, WHEN WE MADE THE CHANGE.
AND I THINK THIS WAS BEFORE YOU, BUT WHEN THEY MADE THE CHANGE, THE INTENT WAS TO GRANDFATHER, EVERYBODY IN.
BUT WHEN WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT IT SUCH AS NOT THE CASE, IT WASN'T WRITTEN IN THERE.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE CHIEF IS TRYING TO WRITE THAT WRONG, BUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE BYPRODUCT IS THAT MR. MILLER, NOT MR. MILLER.
MR. PEDRO WOULD BE PASSED OFF THAT THAT'S IS THAT FAIR? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT THAT'S 100% FAIR ON MY PART.
JUST ONE THING THAT DISTURBS ME IS WE'RE, WE'RE BEING ACCUSED OF TRYING TO, UH, CIRCUMVENT THE LAW.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW, BUT I, I, I DO WANNA BE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT THAT THE CHANGE IS GOING TO HAVE ON MR. LEONARD.
AND, AND OF COURSE, AND I UNDERSTAND MR. LEONARD'S APPROACH, THIS DIRECTLY AFFECTS HIM.
DUE TO PEOPLE, POSSIBLY RETIRING.
IF PEOPLE DON'T RETIRE, MR. LEONARD STAYS WHERE HE IS AT.
SO THERE'S TWO PEOPLE THAT HAVE SENIORITY OVER PEDRO THAT SAY THEY GONNA RETIRE, OR THEY HADN'T OFFICIALLY RETIRED YET.
SO WE DON'T KNOW IF IT EVEN WOULD AFFECT MR. PEDRO YET.
WELL, IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD AFFECT THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS THEN, CORRECT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS WAS GOING TO COME TO LIGHT EVENTUALLY.
IT WAS GOING TO AFFECT SOMEBODY.
IF WE'D HAVE DONE THIS AS MR. PEDRO SAID, THIS WAS BROUGHT UP A YEAR, THIS IS YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS OLD.
IF WE'D HAVE ADDRESSED THIS SEVEN MONTHS AGO, YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME AS WE'RE HAVING TODAY.
IT'S JUST, UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S IN HIS LAP CUZ HE'S THE FIRST ONE THAT, THAT, THAT SURFACED ON.
AND THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO GRANDFATHERING OF ANYBODY IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE.
THE CHANGE IS TO GRANDFATHER PEOPLE IN ESSENTIALLY, IF WE DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES, THEN IT STANDS AS IS PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THESE DIFFERENT, I GUESS, CLASSES, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE REQUISITE EXPERIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT, THEY DON'T GET THE TEST.
JUST LIKE FOR ME, FOR INSTANCE, I'M AN INSPECTOR TOO.
I WASN'T ABLE TO TAKE THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF FIRE PREVENTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE FOUR YEARS AS AN INSPECTOR TOO.
THAT WAS LAST YEAR WE CALLED FOR THAT TEST.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW ME NOW WHENEVER WE CALL FOR THESE EXAMS AGAIN, TO BE ABLE TO TAKE INSPECTOR TO NOW BECAUSE OF SENIORITY, I DON'T, I'M NOT THE SENIOR MAN, SO I WOULDN'T BE THE NEXT ONE UP FOR, FOR A PROMOTION.
AND AGAIN, KNOWING THAT THIS WAS GOING TO AFFECT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT, WE BROUGHT IT BACK TO THE UNION BODY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
CUZ THE UNION BODY WAS VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN THE FRONT END OF THIS WHEN IT HAPPENED BACK IN 2020, AND THEY BROUGHT IT BACK UP AT THEIR LAST MEETING TO DISCUSS HOW THEY THOUGHT IT SHOULD GO.
AND IT'S ALL IN THEIR OPINION WAS THEY SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN BY THIS VERBIAGE.
AND HE CAN SPEAK ON THAT IF HE WANTS.
BUT THAT WAY IT WASN'T US TRYING TO INTERPRET THE ADMINISTRATION GOING AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT COLLECTIVELY.
WE WAS ON THE COME HERE TOGETHER COLLECTIVELY WITH THE SAME KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION OF HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE WENT.
AND NOW WE'RE SITTING WHERE WE'RE AT.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK? NO, I FEEL
LIKE PAT AND ARO THE UNION PRESIDENT FOR BAT ROUGE, FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION.
UM, I'LL ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS IF Y'ALL HAVE THEM, UH, THE, THE, TO SAY, UH, RIGHT NOW, NOW WE DID HAVE A, A LONG CONVERSATION WITH THE UNION AS, AS THE FIRE CHIEF SAID, UM, AT OUR LAST UNION MEETING BECAUSE THERE WAS A, A VOTE AT OUR UNION MEETING IN DECEMBER OF 2020, IF I REMEMBER THE, THE DATES.
AND UH, I DO RECALL ON THE, THE THEN PRESIDENT AT THE TIME
[00:30:01]
STATING THAT THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO AFFECT ANYBODY THAT WAS ALREADY IN A DIVISION, THAT LANGUAGE WAS NOT PUT IN THERE.WE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, WE'RE HERE AT THAT POINT RIGHT NOW.
UM, BUT THE CONVERSATION WAS JUST AS HEATED AS IT IS.
IT IS RIGHT NOW AT THAT UNION MEETING ABOUT THE ENTIRE SUBJECT.
UM, AS I HAD TO PRESENT IT TO THE UNION BODY, TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING AND I'LL GIVE, GIVE MY A BEST RELAY OF THAT AS IT WENT, THE INTENT, THE RULE, THE LAW WAS THAT SOMEBODY COULDN'T GET INTO A DIVISION AND JUMP OVER SOMEBODY ELSE.
THE INTENT WAS NOT TO AFFECT ANYBODY THAT WAS IN THERE.
IF THAT HELPS WITH ANY CLARIFICATION THAT WAS GOING OUR UNION BODY VOTED OR WHAT, WHAT DO Y'ALL WANT TO DO? HOW DO Y'ALL, WHAT, WHAT WILL YOU DIRECT ME TO SAY TO THIS BOARD TODAY? AND THEIRS WAS TO, UM, HOW DID I, HOW DID THEY SAY IT? ADD THE VERBIAGE, ADD THE VER WELL, YEAH, ADD THE VERBIAGE THAT, THAT, THAT WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
I, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE LANGUAGE NOW, THE EFFECTS THAT'S ANOTHER STORY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DECIDED BY Y'ALL ULTIMATELY ONE QUESTION IS HOW WOULD ONE GET IN THIS POSITION, KNOWING THE DYNAMICS OF THE DEPARTMENT, HOW WOULD YOU, HOW WOULD SOMEONE GET PLACED IN THAT POSITION WHEN EVERYTHING, UH, IS ALREADY LAID OUT? WHAT I'M SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN IN THE TRAINING DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT WHEN THIS PERSON WAS PLACED INTO, IT SEEMED LIKE IT WOULD'VE BEEN A TRAIN WRECK AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ASKING? UH I'M HOW DID WE NOT SEE IT SOONER? DOES, DOES NOT COME TO, FOR WHICH, HOW, HOW DOES THIS NOT BECOME A PROBLEM ONCE THE PERSON'S PLACED INTO THE SITUATION? WHEN, WHEN THAT PERSON JOHN MILLER GOT PUT IN THIS POSITION, MM-HMM
IN THE TRAINING IN FEBRUARY 2ND.
YOU HAD MEMBERS OR PEOPLE WHO, WHETHER THEY WERE ON LEAVE OR WHATEVER, THE DYNAMICS WERE STILL THE SAME.
I MEAN, HOW WAS THAT NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION? YEAH.
I, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A QUESTION FOR SOME NOW.
SO THIS IS I DON'T, HOW DID JOHN MILLER GET THIS POSITION? KNOWING THERE WERE PEOPLE, PEOPLE THAT WERE GONNA BE, I'M JUST SAYING WHEN HE GOT THERE AND, UM, THE FOUR YEAR WAS A RULE, BE THEY GONNA CHANGE THE RULES ONLY.
SO, SO THEY CHANGED THE RULES AFTER HE GOT THERE.
SO THE, TO THE TIMELINE IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
I THINK EVERYBODY, DECEMBER, 2020 WE HAD THE, THE UNION HAD HAD, AND WITH CONJUNCTION WITH THE, THE CHIEF'S OFFICE HAD CREATED THE, UH, THE, THE LAW DECEMBER OF 20, DECEMBER OF 2020 JOHN PLACED IN THE, THE POSITION CHIEF, APRIL 26TH CHAIRMAN.
OH ONE, JUST, JUST TO GIVE FACTUAL INFORMATION ON NOVEMBER THE 23RD OF 2020, THE TRAINING TEST WAS APPROVED BY Y'ALL, WHICH HAD JOHN MILLERS, AN ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE TO GO INTO THAT POSITION ON JANUARY.
THE SECOND OF 2021, JOHN MILLER STARTED HIS WORK IN TEST PERIOD IN THE TRAINING DIVISION, THE CHANGE OF THE LAW THAT WENT TO THE FOUR YEAR WITHIN A POSITION TO TAKE THE TEST, WENT INTO EFFECT APRIL THE 26TH OF 21.
SO HE WAS IN THE POSITION PRIOR TO THIS BEING ADOPTED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
SO MY TAKE WAS THEY CHANGED THE RULES ON HIM WHEN HE WAS ALREADY A TRAINING.
SAY YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, COREY RT, THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, EIGHT 11 MERL ESON.
UM, I JUST HAVE A, WOULD LIKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE, AND MAYBE MR. DARK HAD, UH, CLARIFY THIS IN A PROVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT WHEN YOU START THAT PROVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT, LIKE THEY STATED ON JANUARY 2ND AND YOU'RE IN YOUR PROVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT, WORKING TEST PERIOD, WHATEVER TERMINOLOGY YOU WANT TO USE, THAT'S A SIX MONTH TIMEFRAME.
IS THAT PERSON CONSIDERED IN GOOD STANDING AND A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN THAT DIVISION AT THAT POINT IN TIME? OR IS IT THE DATE OF WHICH THEY ARE CERTIFIED ON THEIR PAF WHEN THEY'RE IN THERE? BECAUSE I HEAR SOME SAYING THAT THIS MR. MILLER WAS IN THE DIVISION.
I JUST WOULD LIKE PERSONALLY FOR MYSELF TO KNOW CLARIFICATION TIMELINES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JANUARY 2ND, SIX MONTHS LATER, THAT'S A WORKING TEST PERIOD THAT MAN CAN BE REMOVED.
[00:35:01]
HE CAN SELF DEMOTE AT ANY POINT IN TIME DURING THAT, UH, DURING THAT SIX MONTHS.SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION, IT STATES THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, FOUR YEARS IN A DIVISION PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING PERMANENT.
SO DOES THAT IN THAT SIX MONTHS TIMEFRAME, WHEN DOES HIS TIME IN THAT DIVISION START AT THE DATE THAT HE IS CERTIFIED OR THE DATE THAT HE STARTS? HIS PROVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT? THAT'S JUST A QUESTION THAT'S BEEN BOTHERING ME FOR A WHILE ON EVERY POSITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, CUZ FOR A LONG PERIOD TIME, IT'S BEEN STATED THAT YOU KNOW, THIS MAN STARTED IN THIS DIVISION, THIS MAN STARTED.
SO WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE LAW STATE OF WHEN THIS MAN WOULD ACTUALLY START TO START IN THAT DIVISION CONSIDERED A PERMANENT, A PERMANENT IN GOOD STANDING? UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE LAW SPEAKS TO THAT ISSUE DIRECTLY.
UM, I WOULD DEFER TO THE PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS IN TERMS OF WHEN HE'S ACTUALLY THERE.
I THINK INTERNALLY THE DEPARTMENT AND I THINK THE CHIEF CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT I, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS UNTIL HE'S OFFICIALLY IN THE DEPARTMENT, HE'S JUST PROVISIONALLY.
IS THAT, IS THAT A FAIR INTERPRETATION OF, OR DID I SAY IT OPPOSITE? NO, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT'S OPPOSITE.
HE'S IN HIS PROMOTIONAL TIME, HIS WORKING TEST PERIOD, HE'S HOLDING THAT POSITION.
HE'S RESPONSIBLE TO DO THOSE DUTIES.
MM-HMM
THAT'S IN HIS WORKING TEST PERIOD.
HE'S STILL A FIRE CAPTAIN ON THAT FIRE SCENE.
HE'S STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HE SUPERVISES DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
BUT DOES THAT TO HIS, TO DOES THAT TIME GO TO HIS FOUR YEARS? IS THAT, IS THAT ULTIMATELY THE, THE QUESTION WE IN MY CONSIDERATION IS THAT'S IN, HE'S WORKING IN THAT POSITION.
SO WHY DO WE CALL IT A TEST PERIOD, SIR? SO WHY DO WE LABEL THE TEST PERIOD? THAT'S HIS HOUSE LABELED PROBATION, PROBATIONAL TIME PROB PROBATIONARY PERIOD.
WELL, I THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PROVISIONAL TIME IT'S BUT HE WAS, THE ISSUE IS THE ISSUE IS HE WAS IN A PROVISIONAL POSITION IN THERE PRIOR AND THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE KEEP GOING BACK TO.
I'M NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THAT CUZ THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE HERE FOR.
RIGHT? SO WE'RE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE WORKING TEST PERIOD, CORRECT? HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE TRAINING DIVISION JANUARY THE SECOND OF 2021.
HE WAS A TRAINING OFFICER AT THAT POINT.
HE WAS NOT A PROVISIONAL APPOINTED.
HE WAS ACTUALLY IN THE POSITION IN THE POSITION.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS WHAT DOES THE STATE LAW, OR WHAT DOES THE LAW CIVIL SERVICE LAW STATE TO WIN P AND, AND THAT DATE IS AT WHAT POINT IN TIME IS THAT WHAT'S ON HIS PERSONNEL ACTION FORM AS THIS IS THE DATE THAT YOU WERE CERTIFIED IN THAT POSITION, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN SIX MONTHS AFTER JANUARY 2ND.
FROM THE, TO JANUARY 2ND, THAT'S THE TIME TO ME.
HE'S WELL, THAT'S A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN TRAINING DIVISION.
IT WOULD GO TO JANUARY 2ND CUZ ONCE HE'S CERTIFIED SIX MONTHS LATER, THE TIME GOES BACK TO JANUARY 2ND.
SO IT'S FROM JANUARY 2ND RETROACTIVE.
SO AT THAT POINT, SO THAT'S WHAT THE LAW STATES.
SO IT RETROACTIVE BACK TO JANUARY 2ND IS WHEN HIS ACTUAL TIME STATES, AS LONG AS HE PASSES, THAT'S WHEN HIS SIX MONTHS THAT TIME STARTED.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED CLARIFICATION ON.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UP IN THE AIR IS WHEN, WHEN DOES THAT DATE ACTUALLY START FOR ANY POSITION DRIVER OPERATOR, FIRE, CAPTAIN DISTRICT CHIEF.
AND WE ALWAYS HAVE THESE WORKING TEST PERIODS.
AND WHEN THAT TIMEFRAME ACTUALLY GOES.
SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, ONCE THAT BAND PASSES, HIS WORKING TEST PERIOD, WHICH IS TYPICALLY SIX MONTHS, IT RETROACTIVE BACK TO WHEN HE WAS PUT IN THAT.
AND THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT, I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING PAST EACH OTHER ON SOME ISSUES.
THIS GUY THAT WE'RE AND I WANT TO I'M JUST NO, NO, NO, NO.
I'M NOT RE I'M NOT, I'M NOT ASKING THIS QUESTION FOR THAT.
I'M JUST ASKING HIM FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE WHOLE, UH, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, AS IT GOES, YOU'VE ANSWER THAT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERY POSITION.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON, ON THAT TIMEFRAME.
WELL, SO WHENEVER YOU MAKE DRIVER, YEP.
YOUR CHECK SAYS YOU'RE A F E YEP.
YOU START GETTING, YOU GET A STEP IN LINE PLUS TWO RAISES YOU'RE A F E SIX MONTHS LATER, YOU GET CERTIFIED MM-HMM
AT ANY POINT, DURING THAT SIX MONTH TIME PERIOD, I CAN BE REMOVED FROM THAT POSITION.
YOU GET A STEP BECAUSE YOU COMPLETED YOUR PROBATIONARY PERIOD SATISFACTORY THAT'S.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
IT ACT IS BACK TO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.
[00:40:01]
TO SAY IT.AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION TO MAKE SURE YOU, I'M NOT MAD AT YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION.
WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY, CUZ EVERYBODY KEEPS SAYING, WELL, HE WASN'T CERTIFIED BEFORE THE RULE CHANGED.
AND IF THAT'S THE WAY, THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES, THAT CLARIFIES IT.
I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, I'M GLAD HE CLARIFI TO MAKE, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLARIFIED.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE SAME, HE'S PERMANENT WHEN HE FINISHES THE WORKING TEST AND THE CHIEF SIGNS OFF ON IT.
BUT FOR PURPOSES OF TIME IN THE DEPARTMENT, IT WOULD GO BACK DIVISION.
OR DIVISION, WHATEVER IT'S RETROACTIVE, RETROACTIVE BACK, AS LONG AS HE PASSES THE WORKING TEST PERIOD AT RETROACTIVE BACK TO THE JANUARY, THE SECOND OR WHATEVER, THAT FIRST DAY OF THAT SIX MONTH, THAT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION FOR DEPARTMENT WIDE.
THERE'S A LOT PEOPLE IN OUR DEPARTMENT THAT DO NOT KNOW THAT, SO.
SO BRING US BACK TO OUR, UM, OUR, OUR POINT.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? IS THERE ANY ACTION THAT WE NEED TO TAKE BASED UPON, YEAH, SINCE I, I, I RAISED THE INITIAL QUESTION ABOUT THIS.
I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY IS PEDRO LEONARD, IS IT? YES.
TO MR. LEONARD THAT, YOU KNOW, I SYMPATHIZE WITH HIS, HIS CONCERN.
I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLVE IT.
UM, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO SOMEBODY, WHETHER IT HAPPENS TO YOU OR SOMEBODY ELSE IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE.
SO I HATE TO SEE IT HAPPEN, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND IT.
SO I MAKE A MOTION TO ADD THE VERBIAGE, TO SAY ANY EMPLOYEE IN A DIVISION BEFORE APRIL 26TH, 2021 SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE FOUR YEAR PROMOTIONAL QUALIFICATION TO THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS BY INSPECTOR TWO ASSISTANT CHIEF FIRE INVESTIGATOR, ASSISTANT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, CHIEF ASSISTANT, CHIEF TRAINING, OFFICER FIRE COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICER TWO, CHIEF FIRE APPARATUS, TECHNICIAN, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF SPECIAL SERVICES AND CHIEF FIRE SAFETY OFFICE.
I, I HAVE ONE THING TO ADD THOUGH.
CHIEF, IS THERE A WAY TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT THIS AFFECTS? I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME.
IT'S JUST NOT ONE, UM, THAT I KNOW THAT THIS DIRECTLY HAS AN IMPACT ON IF WE DON CHANGE THIS WELL.
AND THAT'S WHAT I, IS IT A POSSIBLE TO TABLE THAT MATTER AND COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE WE'RE, WE WOULD BE MAKING SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW THE TOTALITY OF IT.
WELL, BRANDON WE'LL KNOW THIS WHENEVER WE CALL FOR, HE'S GONNA CALL FOR ANOTHER TEST BECAUSE OF THESE PEOPLE THAT WERE AFFECTED BY IT.
HE'S GONNA CALL FOR THAT AFTER ALL THIS GETS IN PLACE, THAT'S IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE APPROVE TO ADD THIS VERBIAGE INTO THE, OKAY.
I, I JUST, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT I KNOW WE WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY GONNA AFFECT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW MR. UM, PEDRO CAME, BUT YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT A TOTAL PICTURE OF, UH, SO YOU WOULD LIKE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT IF WE DON'T CHANGE THIS, HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES IT CHANGE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROMOTION? AND NOT ONLY THAT, OR MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT A STRATEGY TO WHERE PEOPLE WON'T BE, UH, GROSSLY AFFECTED IN A NEG, YOU KNOW, IN A NEGATIVE MANNER.
AND TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT, UM, IN Y'ALL'S CLASS SPECIFICATIONS, IS THIS THE, IS THERE LANGUAGE LIKE THIS IN OTHER CLASSES, OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO ME THAT THAT'S WHY WE, WE BROUGHT THIS BECAUSE IN ALL THE POSITIONS YOU SEE IN THERE, IT DOES, IT SAYS THAT YOU MUST HAVE FOUR YEARS AND DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT WAS IN THE POSITIONS PRIOR TO APRIL 26TH.
AS YOU SEE ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER THAT MR. SMITH PROVIDED YOU, THERE'S TWO OTHER POSITIONS THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE MADE IN THAT WE'RE WANTING TO MAKE THE CHANGE IN TODAY TO BE PRESENTED.
AND AGAIN, ON YOUR INFORMATION, MR. WILLIAMS, WE COULD HAVE THAT TO YOU BEFORE IN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE DAYS, I COULD HAVE YOU, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT'S AFFECTED BY THIS, BUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE DOESN'T AFFECT WELL OR NOT, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE IT.
SO I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION IS THIS WHOLE INTER DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY DEAL, RIGHT? CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS GUY'S QUESTION WAS ULTIMATELY ABOUT.
WHEN DID YOUR TIME START TO RUN AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF? I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK THAT THE LAW REALLY TALKS ABOUT THAT.
WHAT Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY CONTEMPLATED AND WHEN YOU GET IN DIVISIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IS THERE ANY OTHER INTER INTERDEPARTMENT SENIORITY REQUIREMENTS ANYWHERE ELSE IN Y'ALL'S CLASS PLAN OTHER THAN THIS? NO, SIR.
WELL, SO IF WE GET RID OF THIS, DO THAT BASICALLY ELIMINATE THE ISSUE ALTOGETHER.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? GET RID OF IT? IF
[00:45:01]
WE GET RID OF THE, THE LANGUAGE ABOUT INTERDEPARTMENT SENIORITY AND STUFF.I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TAKING THE FOUR YEAR REQUIREMENT OUT, RIGHT? NO, WE'RE NOT TAKING IT OUT.
YOU'RE NOT TAKING YOU'RE WELL, YOU'RE GRANDFATHERING PEOPLE IN.
SO WE STILL HAVE THE ISSUE ISSUE OF WHAT, WHEN DOES YOUR FOUR, WHEN DOES YOUR FOUR YEARS ACTUALLY START? CAUSE THAT'S THAT'S QUESTION COREY T QUESTION.
AND, AND THAT'S A, MAYBE A SEPARATE QUESTION FOR TODAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT'S SEPARATE THAN THIS, BUT I MEAN, THAT GOES TO THE FOUR YEAR RULE.
I CUZ THE WAY THAT THE, THE CLASS SPECS READ, IT SAYS FOUR YEARS FROM THE TIME YOU'RE PERMANENT.
RIGHT? SO WHILE I THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAT IT GOES RETROACTIVE.
I WANT TO BE LIKE COMPLETELY JUST BLANKET BLACK AND WHITE, THE WAY THAT IT READS THAT IT IT'S FROM THE TIME OF YOU'RE PERMANENT, WHICH WOULD BE AFTER THE WORKING TEST PERIOD.
AND I KNOW THAT'S KIND OF A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
SO THAT WAY THEY DON'T SAY, YOU KNOW, I CONFUSED EVERYBODY.
DID THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT I'M SAYING? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IS THAT THE WAY THAT YOU GUYS USE IT THOUGH? WE'VE NEVER USED IT TO MY KNOWLEDGE IN THAT WAY.
WHEN, WHEN THEY, WHEN A FIREFIGHTER GETS HIRED OF FEBRUARY THE 26TH, HE DOES HIS ROOKIE SCHOOL WORK DESPERATE.
THAT'S STILL HIS DATE OF HIRE.
WHEN A MAN GETS APPOINTED TO A DIVISION OR PROMOTION, THAT'S TRULY HIS DATE OF HIRE IN THAT CLASSIFICATION.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE WAY THAT THE CLASS SPECS READ WHEN IT SAYS FOUR YEARS FROM THE TIME YOU'RE PERMANENT, IT WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE.
AND SO, IN OTHER WORDS, I'M TRYING TO PREVENT A SITUATION WHERE Y'ALL ARE BACK IN SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS.
SO THAT'S WHAT, AND AGAIN, SAME.
THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH, WHEN THIS COME UP, WE WENT THROUGH ALL OUR JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND FOUND WHERE IT WAS DONE, RIGHT.
UM, LIKE AGAIN, AS YOU LOOK ON THAT PIECE OF PAPER, THERE'S TWO POSITIONS THAT WAS NEVER ADDRESSED IF THEY DID EVERYTHING ELSE.
BUT THESE TWO POSITIONS THAT'S IN MY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE, THAT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAPER.
SO IT IS NOT JUST A, A, UH, AN ISSUE WITHIN OUR TRAINING DIVISION.
THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS ACROSS THE BOARD, WITHIN EVERY CLASSIFICATION OF A DIVISION WITHIN THE BATTER ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND ALSO AGAIN, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED IN THIS IN A NEGATIVE WAY, NO MATTER HOW WE LOOK AT IT, BUT WE JUST DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, HOW MANY PEOPLE, WHAT DOES THAT MATTER? NO I'M WANTS TO CHANGE.
SO IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A NEGATIVE STANDPOINT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WELL, I'M LOOKING AT NEGATIVE, MR. LEONARD'S POINT.
I DON'T HAVE A, HE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE THE NEXT POTENTIALLY BE THE NEXT GUY TO MAKE ASSISTANT CHIEF.
RIGHT? SO IT'S A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIM BECAUSE IF THIS WAS TO GO INTO EFFECT, HE'S NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO GET IT.
SOMEBODY WILL GO AHEAD OF HIM.
THESE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE THE PROMOTIONAL EXAM COMING UP.
MM-HMM
SO THAT NUMBER THERE'S, WHO IS AFFECTED WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT FROM A GOOD OR RIGHT.
NOW I DEFINITELY CAN HAVE YOU THE CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE LIST OF THE NAMES OF THOSE PEOPLE IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THROUGHOUT THIS WEEK.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER, MR. NO, I, I STILL DON'T HAVE A GOOD FEELING ABOUT IT, BUT, UM, I GUESS WE NEED TO GO AHEAD.
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT JUST MAGS AT MY RAW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
IF THIS WOULD'VE BEEN FIXED ON THE FRONT END AND DONE CORRECTLY.
YEAH, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.
WE'D HAVE BROUGHT IT UP SIX MONTHS AGO.
SOMEBODY WAS GONNA BE AFFECTED.
WE BRING IT UP TODAY AND UNFORTUNATELY IT SURFACED ITSELF AND EVERYBODY, I SHOULDN'T SAY EVERYBODY, MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT THIS WAS HOW IT WAS.
DID WE GO LOOK AT IT? IT NEVER COME UP TILL NOW.
I KNOW I'M NOT READY SECOND AGO.
TO GET US OFF A DEAD CENTER, I'LL SECOND A MOTION, BUT I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.
[00:50:01]
HAVE A MOTION IN SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.LET'S JUST BE CLEAR ON I CAN'T SECOND THAT, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DAMAGE WOULD BE DONE, JOHN, IF WE TABLED THIS FOR 30 DAYS WHILE WE GET SOME MORE INFORMATION, THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME UNREADINESS.
UM, AND ALL WE DOING RIGHT NOW IS VOTING TO CHANGE THE VERBIAGE IN HERE.
THIS DOESN'T AFFECT PEDRO LEONARD.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THAT'S NOT.
AND ULTIMATELY I MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT A MORALE ISSUE THAT IT WOULD FOSTER A BAD MORALE.
IT MAY FOSTER, UH, A BAD NOW AS CHAIRMAN, EITHER WAY.
THIS GOES FROM MY DEPARTMENT'S A BAD MORALE, EITHER WAY IT GOES.
SO HOW DO WE FIX IT? I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT.
SO I LIKE WITHOUT ONE PARTY FEELING OBJECTIFIED, I LIKE TO KIND OF SEEK A SOLUTION TO WHERE WE CAN DO THIS INSTEAD OF THIS.
AND, UM, AND, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY I'M FEELING THAT WE NEED TO TABLE IT.
UM, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND Y'ALL, Y'ALL MAY NOT WANT TO, BUT I, I THINK WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING TO KIND OF REACH ACROSS THE AISLE, UH, YOU KNOW, TO SEE HOW WE CAN MINIMIZE THE EFFECT OF THIS.
WELL, AT LEAST WHEN I, WHEN I VOTE FOR SOMETHING, I WANT TO BE COMFORTABLE.
BRING IT UP, GOES SAYING WE HAVE IT FOR A 30 DAY PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? YEP.
JUST CAUSE WE, WE WROTE TO POST THIS FOR 30 DAYS, DON'T MEAN WE VOTING TO APPROVE IT TODAY.
WE STILL HAVE TO POST ALL THESE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS WITH THIS VERBIAGE CHANGE TO IT.
AND THEN NEXT MONTH WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AND WE CAN VOTE ON ALL OF THAT.
WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY IS NOT ACTUALLY APPROVING THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE, WE'RE VOTING TO POST IT FOR 30 DAYS.
THE STATE EXAMINER WILL COME IN AND GIVE COMMENT DURING THAT 30 DAYS.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE CHIEF, MR. PEDRO, MR. RAINS, ANYBODY, THE UNION CAN COME IN AND, UH, TELL US WHY WE SHOULDN'T DO THIS TERRIBLE THING.
BUT IF, IF THAT'S THE, THAT CLEARS, I I'M FINE WITH THAT.
AND SO AT THAT APPROPRIATE TIME, I LIKE FOR ALL PARTIES TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, AIR THEIR GRIEVANCES AND GET PAST THIS, UH, AND I WILL ASK ADRIAN BLAW TO COME AND GIVE HER OPINION ON IT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND BY PRESS ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
AND I'M VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOU CONCERNED WITH THE MORALE.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THESE PEOPLE, UH, SAVE LIVES EVERY DAY AND WE WANT TO BE AS CONSIDERATE.
IT PUTS US ADMINISTRATION IN A VERY BAD POSITION TO HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT ANYTHING.
WE'RE TRYING TO JUST FIX THE PROBLEM THAT HAS SURFACED PRIOR TO OUR TIME.
AND I ALSO WANT TO ADD, THIS IS NOT, I'M NOT FOR JOHN MILLER AND AGAINST PEDRO LEONARD.
I HATE THAT THEY, THIS EVEN HAD TO COME UP BETWEEN PEDRO AND JOHN MILLER.
UH, I'M TRYING TO STAY NEUTRAL HERE, BUT IT WAS MY OPINION.
JUST LIKE I SPOKE TO YOU AND YOU SPOKE IN A LETTER THAT YOU WROTE TO THE CHAIRMAN THAT I WAS GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE JOHN MILL'S APPLICATION BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RIGHT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEBODY'S CAREER.
JUST LIKE IF IT WOULD'VE HAPPENED TO YOU AND THEY CHANGED THE RULES ON YOU, I WOULD'VE FOUGHT FOR YOU.
JUST LIKE I TOLD YOU LAST MONTH, I DON'T THINK IT WAS RIGHT.
AND I, IT WASN'T THE INTENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO HURT ANYBODY IN THE DIVISION, BUT I WAS GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE HIS APPLICATION BECAUSE I DIDN'T, I WAS FIGHTING FOR HIS RIGHT, JUST LIKE I WOULD'VE FOUGHT FOR YOURS.
SO ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAPER ALSO, WHICH WE WILL HAVE TO POST THERE'S ANOTHER CHANGE TO, UH, ASSISTANT FIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO SAY MUST BE A REGULAR AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEE AND GOOD STANDING IN THE CLASS OF ASSISTANT FIRE AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BEFORE HE CAN TAKE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER'S TEST.
[00:55:01]
A MOTION THAT WE ADD THIS VERBIAGE IN WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, WHERE IT WAS INTENDED TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ALL THAT WILL GET POSTED JUST LIKE ALL OF THESE OTHER ONES WILL, IT JUST KEEPS US FROM HAVING TO COME BACK TO THIS AND CHANGE IT LATER ON BECAUSE IT WASN'T ADDED BEFORE THE APRIL 26TH OF 21 MEETING.BUT IF IT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE, I WILL REQUEST THAT YOU ALL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS REGULAR AND PERMANENT DEFINITIONS AND MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR JUST WHAT THAT MEANS, BECAUSE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS EARLIER, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT REGULAR AND PERMANENT REALLY MEANS.
SO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AS WELL, EVERYBODY.
SO THAT, THAT VERBIAGE IS IN ON A REQUIREMENT WHEN YOU APPLY TO TAKE A TEST.
SO WHAT IT'S SAYING, SAY FOR SAY, UH, ASSISTANT CHIEF FIRE PREVENTION, WHEN IT SAYS YOU MUST BE A PERMANENT AND REGULAR EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING, IT MEANS THAT YOU'VE COMPLETED YOUR WORKING TEST PERIOD.
YOU HAVE TO DO, YOU HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED, WHICH IS SIX MONTHS.
YOU HAVE TO BE A CERTIFIED INSPECTOR TWO BEFORE YOU CAN TAKE THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF FIRE PREVENTIONS TEST, WHICH IN THAT CASE, I MEAN, JOHN, MILLER'S BEEN CERTIFIED SINCE SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
SO HE'S, HE'S CERTIFIED RIGHT NOW.
IF WE CALLED FOR THE TEST, HE'S A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING AND TRAINING OFFS.
AND, AND I'M JUST, AND I'M JUST SIMPLY ASKING THAT VERBIAGE MEANS WHENEVER.
I'M JUST SIMPLY ASKED THAT YOU REVIEW IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S AS CLEAR AS IT CAN BE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY JOHN, BUT UH, WE NOT HAD A SECOND YET, SO I'LL SECOND.
SO SECONDED BY PRESS ALL IN FAVOR.
DID NOT THINK THAT WAS GONNA TAKE YOU.
[8. Consider Motion to Call for Examination(s) – Criminal Information Specialist I, Police Cadet Position, Fingerprint Technician I, Police Communication Officer I, Criminal Intelligence Analyst, Police Lieutenant]
ALL RIGHT.MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, CONSIDERED A CALL FOR EXAMINATIONS.
THOSE EXAMINATIONS ARE CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST, ONE POLICE CADET POSITION, FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN, ONE POLICE COMMUNICATIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICER, ONE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYST AND POLICE LIEUTENANT.
[9. Consider Motion to Call for Sgt. Joseph Dargin’s Lieutenant’s Examination]
MOVING ON.UH, CONSIDER FOR A MOTION TO CALL SERGEANT JOSEPH DARGAN, LIEUTENANT EXAMINATION.
UH, THIS ITEM I, I DO FEEL WE DID ON LAST, UH, MONTH'S MEETING.
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO SEND THE MINUTES TO THE STATE EXAMINER.
UH, WHERE WE APPROVED SERGEANT.
IS THAT RIGHT? MS. DORSEY? WE JUST NEED TO GET SOMETHING TO THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE.
[10. Consider BRPD Request to Rehire Wesley Chandler – Police Department]
ALL RIGHT.MOVING ON, UH, TO ITEM NUMBER 10.
UM, CONSIDER THE BAT ROUGE, UH, POLICE DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST TO REHIRE WESLEY CHANDLER CHANDLER.
YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE REHIRE.
UH, OFFICER CHANNELLER LEFT AND GOOD STANDING AND WE WELCOME HIM BACK.
IS THERE SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MR. SMITH.
[11. Consider Request from Cpl. Cullen to review and modify eligibility list, related to Police Sergeant. ]
TO ITEM NUMBER 11 TO CONSIDER REQUEST FROM CORPORAL CULLEN TO REVIEW AND MODIFY ELIGIBILITY LIST RELATED TO THE POLICE SERGEANT.AND, UM, SECOND CU WAS GRANTED A MAKEUP EXAMINATION DUE TO DEPLOYMENT AND A PASSING SCORE, BUT NOT INCLUDED ON THE ELIGIBILITY LIST.
SO IT'S TWO THINGS, I GUESS HE WANTS TO, YOU KNOW, UM, HE HAS THIS OFFICIAL LETTER WHERE HE WAS DEPLOYED AND UH, HE WANTS TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE LIST.
AND DO WE HAVE A LIST? WELL, HE HE'D ALREADY TAKEN THE EXAM.
UH, HE'S NOT ON AN UPDATED LIST.
AND WHY WOULD HE NOT BE ON THE LIST? YES, IT WASN'T UPDATED.
MS. DORSEY, DID YOU, UH, COMMUNICATE WITH THE STATE EXAMINER'S
[01:00:01]
OFFICE ABOUT THIS ISSUE? CAN YOU JUST TELL THE BOARD WHAT THE STATE EXAMINER TOLD US TO DO BASICALLY? SO THAT WAY THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON? UM, WELL THEY, WHEN I CONTACT THEM, I WAS INFORMED THAT HE DID HAVE AN ACTIVE STORE AND THAT I JUST NEEDED TO REACH OUT TO YOU GUYS AND LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT HE HAD AN ACTIVE STORE, UH, AND IT WAS APPROVED AND IT WAS APPROVED SO THAT HE COULD BE ADDED TO THE SERGEANTS.IS THERE A SECOND? I I'M SECOND.
[12. Consider and Schedule Request(s) for Appeal Hearing – BRPD]
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12 TO CONSIDER AND RESCH AND SCHEDULE REQUEST FOR APPEAL, HEARING FOR B R R P D.UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE RECEIVED TWO APPEALS, ONE FOR, UM, MR. STEEL AND ANOTHER ONE FOR MR. MATTINGLY.
UM, WE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE TIMELY RECEIVED.
THEY WERE RECEIVED WITHIN THE 15 DAYS.
UM, AND WE JUST NEED TO, I GUESS WE CAN SCHEDULE GET, UH, BASED UPON, UH, DO YOU HAVE COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES? I DON'T SEE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, BUT I DO SEE, UH, UH, MR. RAINS, HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH ANY TALK OCTOBER, RIGHT.
UM, WHAT WE COULD DO IS TENTATIVELY PLACE IT ON THE NOVEMBER, CORRECT PLACE.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A, SINCE YOU'RE HERE, DO YOU HAVE A PLEASURE OF WHICH ONE YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE IN, UH, NOVEMBER? DO YOU HAVE A EXPECTED, UM, DATE FOR THOSE PROCEEDINGS TO BE FINISHED? NO IDEA.
SO WHAT WE'LL DO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE MANUALLY FOR, UH, THE NOVEMBER FOR ITS APPEAL TO BE IN NOVEMBER.
AND, UH, WE WILL, I GUESS, PENDING THE, UH, OUTCOME OF THE CRIMINAL, UH, CAUSE I DON'T SEE, IT WOULD BE POINTLESS TO DO A, UM, HEARING BEFORE THE CRIMINAL ASPECT IS FINISHED.
MR. RYAN, COULD YOU SAY, UH, I'LL CHECK WITH STEEL'S REPRESENTATIVE AND JUST VERIFY THAT HE WANTS TO PUSH IT BACK PENDING ALL THE CRIMINAL STUFF THAT HE HAS GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN I'LL TOUCH BASE WITH KYLE ON, UM, THE NOVEMBER HEARING DATE FOR MATTINGLY.
WHICH, WHAT DAY ARE WE GONNA DO IT IN NOVEMBER? UH, WHAT WAS OUR WHAT'S OUR REGULAR DATE.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE AROUND THANKSGIVING, BUT WE HAD A WEEK OF THANKSGIVING, 20, THE MONDAY OF THE THANKSGIVING 20 LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE 21ST, 20 TO THE 21ST.
NO, NOVEMBER 20 NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER.
HELLO, WORKING MR. D I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHAT I HEAR BACK FROM KYLE.
I, I TEXTED HIM EARLIER ABOUT PROBABLY IN COURT OR SOMETHING RIGHT NOW.
WELL THAT BEING SAID, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13, ADJOURN, MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND BY MR. DO ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING.