[00:00:01]
IT IS NOW OFFICIALLY 1132, OCTOBER 24TH.
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
[ 1. Roll Call]
CAN WE CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? ROLL CALL.BRANDON WILLIAMS, PRESENT, PRESS ROBINSON.
SHARON LEWIS, PRESENT, ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD.
JOSHUA DARRA PRESENT, MADE A RECORD REFLECT A QUORUM FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO, UH, ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
SEEING NONE, WE MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
UM, I WAS HEARING THE LAST TIME, I'M JUST SPEAKING ON AN ITEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD TALK NOW.
BUT WHEN IT COMES UP, UH, IN REGARDS TO THE HEARING ON THE VERBIAGE CHANGE, UH, AGAIN, UH, I STATE THAT MY CONCERN, UH, THAT IT WILL AFFECT SOMEONE, UH, IN THE VISION, UH, IN THE DIVISION.
AND THAT WOULD BE ONE WOULD BE ME.
UM, I'VE BEEN IN THAT DIVISION SINCE 2012, UM, WITH THE NOTION THAT YOU MOVE TO THE RANKS AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND YOU PROMOTE.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, THE WAY THE VERBAGE CHANGE HAS WRITTEN, UM, IT CAN DEFINITELY AFFECT, UH, NOT JUST MYSELF, BUT OTHER PEOPLE, UH, IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
UM, THIS RULE HAS CHANGED ROUGHLY ABOUT, UM, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE, WE HAVE GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO THE CURRENT RULE THAT'S IN PLACE.
UH, THE, THE PERSONNEL AT BATMAN FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, HAVE, HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT, UH, THAT 10 AND FOUR WAS PLACED IN, UH, IN POSITION, UH, FOR US TO FOLLOW.
AND WE HAVE GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO IT.
NOW, IT'S AT A POINT WHERE, UM, THE QUESTION OF, UH, BEING CERTIFIED OF THE DIVISION IS AT HAND.
UH, AND I, I STATE THAT BECAUSE, UH, THAT'S ONE OF THE, THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES.
WHEN ARE WE CERTIFIED IN A DIVISION? IF YOU'RE CERTIFIED IN A DIVISION, UH, YOU'RE PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN THAT DIVISION.
UH, AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I MEAN, A CLEAR DEFINITION FROM STATE CIVIL SERVICE IS ALSO, ALSO IN PLACE AS WELL.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT, UH, IS UP FOR A POSSIBLE, UM, THAT CAN POSSIBLY TAKE A TEST AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, EVEN IF, UH, VER CHANGE HAS, HAS WENT THROUGH BECAUSE IT IS A REQUIREMENT FOR FOUR YEARS IN THAT DIVISION.
AND THAT PARTY WILL STILL NOT MEET THAT, UH, WILL NOT MEET THAT, THAT REQUIREMENT.
AND AGAIN, AS I STATED THE LAST TIME, AT SOME POINT, AT WHAT POINT IN TIME WILL WE STOP CHANGING THE RULES TO, UH, BENEFIT ONE PERSON? UH, RULES ARE PLACED IN, RULES ARE PLACED IN EFFECT.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, UH, AS I STATED, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SPEAK ANY MORE ON IT THAN I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN BEFORE.
AND, UM, I AM VERY DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS, UM, ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE HAVE GONE AS FAR AS BRINGING, UH, YOU KNOW, BRINGING THIS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, KNOWING THESE RULES ARE IN PLACE, UH, WE SHALL FOLLOW THESE RULES.
AND, YOU KNOW, TO THE CREDIT, I, I, IT WASN'T EVEN, IT, IT, IT, WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT.
UH, THE INTENT WAS BROUGHT UP NOT TO AFFECT ANYBODY IN THE DIVISION OR ON THE FLOOR.
[2. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda]
NONE.WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.
AND THAT'S TO CONSIDER THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from September 19, 2022, regular meeting]
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, IS TO CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER'S 19TH, 2022, REGULAR MEETING.I'VE REVIEWED THE MR. CHAIRMAN AND I'VE MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED TO US.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. ROBERSON.
[00:05:01]
SECOND BY MS. DORSEY.[4. Conduct Public Hearing regarding change in verbiage in various job classifications in the Fire Department]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE VERBIAGE IN VARIOUS JOB CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.WE HAVE SOME FROM SOMEBODY FROM THE CHIEF'S OFFICE THIS WEEK, PROBABLY.
SO WHEN WE COME TO Y'ALL LAST, IT WAS TALKED TO ABOUT TABLE IT, COME BACK FOR A MONTH AND DISCUSS.
WE POSTED IT, POSTED IT FOR 30 DAYS, AND COME BACK AND DISCUSS.
AND I STILL STAND BY WHAT WE ADDRESSED THE FIRST TIME.
THE, UH, INTENT WHEN THIS WAS PUT INTO EFFECT WAS TO NOT, UH, AFFECT THE ANYBODY THAT WAS IN THAT POSITION AT THE TIME.
NOW YOU GO BACK OVER WHAT WE SPOKE ON THE FIRST MEETING, OR, YEAH.
AND, UH, WE HAVE, I SAW SOMETHING THAT HAD THE PROPOSED VERBIAGE.
WHERE WAS THAT? WELL, I THINK WE HAVE THE, WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE VERBIAGE.
WE DID RECEIVE, UH, COMMENT FROM THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE.
SO, WHEN WE POST, UM, ANY CHANGES LIKE THAT, OVER 30 DAYS, THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE, UM, HAS THE ABILITY TO COMMENT, AND THEY DID WEIGH IN ON THIS MATTER ON OCTOBER 4TH, 2022.
SO, YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS INTO THE RECORD? YEAH, READ, READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
I WILL, UH, EVERYONE, BEAR WITH ME.
THIS IS FROM THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE DATED OCTOBER 4TH, 2022.
ADDRESS TO MR. BRANDON WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN DEAR MR. WILLIAMS, THANK YOU FOR FORWARDING THE NOTICES, REFLECTING THAT YOUR BOARD WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2022, TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO 10 FIRE CLASSES.
THE OFFICES, THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER, APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND MAKE COMMENTS UPON REVIEWING THE REVISIONS INDICATED FOR EACH CLASS.
THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER MAKES THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON APRIL 26TH, 2021, THE BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ADOPTED TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR 16 FIRE CLASSES.
EIGHT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES BEFORE YOU ARE TO GRANDFATHER IN PEOPLE WHO WERE IN LOWER CLASSES ON APRIL 6TH, APRIL 26TH, 2021, BUT DO NOT CURRENTLY MEET THE TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENT PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED.
ONE OF THE CLASS REVISIONS IS TO AMEND THE TIME AND GRADE PROVISION FROM THREE YEARS TO 10 YEARS, AND THE OTHER CLASSES TO REMOVE THE TIME AND GRADE COMPLETELY.
BOTH OF THESE LAST TWO CLASSES PURPORT TO ADOPT THE LANGUAGE IN GOOD STANDING AS THE EIGHT CLASSES FOR WHICH THE BOARD IS PROPOSING TO GRANDFATHER AND EMPLOYEES.
THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE BOARD ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE IF THE BOARD DESIRES TO EXPAND THE APPLICANT POOL FOR THESE CLASSES.
IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER THAT THE BOARD JUST REMOVE THE CURRENT TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENT AND PROVIDE THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BE A REGULAR AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN THE CLASS OF TRAINING OFFICER.
FIRE APPARATUS TECHNICIAN, FIRE SAFETY OFFICER, FIRE COMMUNICATIONS, ONE ARSON INVESTIGATOR, FIRE INSPECTOR, ONE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER, FIRE SERVICES AND SUPPLY TECHNICIAN AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR TESTING IN THE PROMOTIONAL CLASSES FOR THE CLASS OF FIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, WHERE THE BOARD IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE FOUR YEAR TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENT IN THE CLASS OF ASSISTANT FIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, AND ADOPT THE LANGUAGE OF A REGULAR AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING IN THE CLASS OF ASSISTANT FIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER RECOMMENDS YOU REMOVE THE LANGUAGE IN GOOD STANDING.
THIS LANGUAGE IS SUBJECTIVE, AND FOR WHICH THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHEN APPROVING SOMEONE'S APPLICATION FOR THE CLASS OF ASSISTANT FIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
THE BOARD'S PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE TIME AND GRADE FROM THREE YEARS EXPERIENCE IN FIRE SUPPRESSION TRAINING OR FIRE PREVENTION WITH A FULL-TIME PAID FIRE DEPARTMENT TO MUST BE A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING AND MUST HAVE 10 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN FIRE SUPPRESSION TRAINING OR FIRE PREVENTION WITH A FULL-TIME PAID FIRE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.
AS WITH THE FIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD REMOVE THE LANGUAGE IN GOOD STANDING.
AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE IS SUBJECTIVE AND WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR THE BOARD TO DETERMINE
[00:10:01]
IF SOMEONE'S IN GOOD STANDING WITH THEIR DEPARTMENT.WE HOPE THE INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED HERE ARE HELPFUL TO YOUR BOARD.
PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT US WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS RELATED TO THIS ADVICE REGARDS.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER OR ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO COMMENT OR, YEAH.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SHOULD WE, OR, OR DO YOU WANT PUT A MOTION? MOTION? OKAY.
IT DIDN'T HAVE DISCUSSION ON IT.
SO I MOVED THAT WE LISTENED OR TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE AND DO AWAY WITH THE 10 AND FOUR RULE FOR ALL DIVISION AND GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VERBIAGE, WHICH WAS BEFORE APRIL 26TH MEETING.
THEN WE'LL HAVE, WE'LL TURN THE DISCUSSION, UH, MR. SMITH JUST TO BE, UH, CLEAR ON, SO THE OTHER PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE THE END GOOD STANDING LANGUAGE.
ARE YOU ADOPTING THAT AS WELL IN YOUR MOTION? YES.
YEAH, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF A VAGUE STATEMENT ANYWAY.
I'VE ALWAYS BEEN IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THAT ALSO.
DOES IT SAY ANYTHING IN THERE TO REPLACE IT? NO.
JUST GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, JUST STATE YOUR NAME, THE ADDRESS FOR ME, SIR.
YOU COULD, YOU COULD SPEAK IF YOU WANT TO.
WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO ADDRESS? UH, 16 3 28 BROWN ROAD, BAKER, LOUISIANA.
SO I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE, MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WAS AWARE THAT I TWO 'EM IN TRAINING AND, AND I WAS IN TRAINING BEFORE THIS RULE WAS PLACED.
CAN I BRING IT TO Y'ALL? SHOW YOU.
IT'S JUST, AND I WAS ALSO PROMISED ONCE I WAS IN THERE, I WAS ALSO PROMISED, ONCE I HEARD THAT THEY WERE COMING OUT WITH THIS NEW RULE, THAT IT WOULDN'T AFFECT ME BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY PLACED IN TRAINING.
THAT THE RULE WOULDN'T AFFECT ME.
IT WOULD ANYBODY PLACED IN AFTER THAT RULE WAS IN EFFECT.
JOHN, COULD YOU COME IN? THE ATTORNEY HAD A QUESTION.
HE SAID PROMISED BY WHO YOU WERE PROMISED BY WHO AND WHEN? UH, WHEN I WAS PLACED IN THE POSITION BY THE LAST ADMINISTRATION AND THE UNION, THEY BOTH PROMISED THAT IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT ME AT ALL.
YOU WANT YOUR CERTIFICATE BACK? RIGHT.
GOT ANYTHING? MIKE PATRO, LOCAL 5 57, UH, FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, PRESIDENT.
UM, I WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF HOPING TOKE OUTTA HERE AND NOT HAVE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS TODAY.
APPARENTLY I WASN'T GETTING OUT WITH ANY BLOOD ON MY HANDS ALSO.
SO, UM, I'M READY FOR THIS ONE TO BE OVER.
I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU,
UM, THE BOARD MET, OR OUR, MY, OUR, OUR BOARD, UM, UNION MET AGAIN AND WITH THE, CERTAINLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME DOWN FROM THE, THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER.
WE ARE NOT IN CURRENT SUPPORT, BUT THE, THE, THE, THE AMENDMENT HE IS, THAT'S OUR STANCE ON IT.
FRANKLY, I HOPE NOT TO HAVE TO MAKE ANY MORE COMMENTS ON IT.
WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT OF THE AMENDMENT AS IT STANDS, ITS CURRENT'S POSITION.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE THE MOTION? UH, SMITH MAY NOT.
JOHN, I'LL, I MOVE THAT WE TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE.
ALTHOUGH I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE PERFECT CLARIFICATION WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED.
WE WE'RE, SO WITH THIS BEING SAID, WE WOULD GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL WORDING AS IT STANDS ON 10 AND FOUR RIGHT NOW.
IT'S TAKING ALL THAT OUT BEFORE THE APRIL 26TH.
[00:15:01]
BEFORE JUST THAT LANGUAGE RIGHT THERE.SO WE'RE NOT DOING AWAY WITH 10 AND FOUR.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, I THOUGHT IT SOUNDED LIKE WE ARE DOING AWAY WITH IT.
10 AND FOUR AND WOULD GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS BEFORE APRIL, 2020 SIXTH MEETING.
SO YOU'RE DOING AWAY WITH TIME AND CAN YOU EVEN VOTE ON THAT AT, AT THIS MEET WE CAN, WITHOUT BEING OUTTA ORDER, WE, WE STRIKE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO POST FOR IT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO POST, WE, WE CAN STRIKE THE NEW VERBIAGE THAT WAS ADDED ON APRIL 20.
WE CERTAINLY STRIKE IT AND THEN GO BACK AND TRY TO WORK ON DOING THE OTHER IS WHAT YOU'RE
SO WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN, SO WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE CONSIDERING VERBIAGE SO TO THE CLASS.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS AMENDING THE CLASS SPECS.
BUT, AND THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE, UH, STATE EXAMINER'S SAYING DON'T DO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
THEY'RE SAYING, MATTER OF FACT, IF, WHICH YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY EXPAND THE APPLICANT POOL, Y'ALL NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS, BEFORE THE AUGUST 26TH, 2021 AMENDMENT.
SO WE'RE AMENDING THE CLASS SPEC.
SO WE CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW, IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE, THE STATE EXAMINER.
SO IF YOU, SO IT WOULD REMOVE THE RE REQUIRE THE, THE TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS ALTOGETHER OF WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON.
IT WOULD GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS, WHATEVER IT WAS BEFORE.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS BEFORE FOR THE, THE BUT IT ON, ON THE AGENDA.
IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE VERBIAGE THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, UH, TAKING THE, THE EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING OUT OF IT.
WELL, THAT DEFINITELY WOULD, I WOULD SAY NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
I'M JUST MAKING SURE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
SO DOES THAT CHANGE, DOES DID THAT CHANGE YOUR, I GUESS WHAT YOU JUST TOLD MR PRESS? WELL, NO, IT DOESN'T CHANGE IT.
UM, RIGHT NOW, I, I WOULD DEFINITELY SAY THAT THE, THE REQUEST THAT THE UNION HAS HAD IS, IS WITH BEING DIVIDED RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.
I GOT TWO UNION MEMBERS OVER HERE THAT ARE ABOUT TO GET, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF 'EM IS LEAVING HERE.
I MEAN, THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.
THE ONLY THING I'VE ASKED FOR FROM THIS ENTIRE PROCESS IS TO GET LANGUAGE THAT MADE SENSE.
WHATEVER THE RULE IT ENDS UP BEING.
AND RIGHT NOW LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT EFFORT.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO REMOVE THE TIME AND GRADE YET.
I WILL I BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT IN THE FUTURE.
MAYBE TODAY, RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT SURE OF THE KNEEJERK REACTION COMING OUT SAYING, WELL, LOOK, THIS WILL FIX THE HOLE.
WELL, WE, WE'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD QUITE A FEW TIMES TRYING TO DO IT FAST.
AND I THINK IT'S, I'M IN SUPPORTER TRYING TO CHANGE IT ALL TOGETHER SLOWLY.
WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY.
LET'S, LET'S GET, NOT JUMP ON IT, THESE DIRECT REACTIONS, LIKE ONE THING OUT OF THE WAY, AND THEN WE'LL WORK ON THE NEXT ONE, IF THAT'S FINE.
THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE TO AMEND THE CLASS TODAY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
UM, WELL WAIT, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THIS OTHER CHANGE IN VERBIAGE, BUT YOU GUYS CAN DECLINE THE CHANGE IN VERBIAGE.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO IT KEEPS IT AS IT WAS AMENDED ON, UH, APRIL 26TH, 2021.
WE HAVE A, BUT MY MOTION WAS TO ACCEPT THE STATE EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF ACCEPTING IT.
YOU GOT ANOTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
LET'S, LET'S, I JUST WANNA GET SOME CLARIFICATION FOR MYSELF.
ALSO, STATE YOUR NAME FOR RT TO BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT 80 11 MERLE GUSTESON.
SO FIRST OF ALL, I FEEL LIKE WHAT THE FIRST THING THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF IS THAT THE, THAT THEY NEED TO BE, THAT THE VERBIAGE CHANGE NEEDS TO BE VOTED ON FIRST.
WE EITHER NEED, EITHER NEED TO ACCEPT THE VERBIAGE CHANGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED OR DENY IT, AND THEN WE'LL BE AT WHAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT 10 AND FOUR.
IF WE GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS, APRIL 26TH OF 20 OF 21.
IT WAS THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS WHERE THE REQ WHERE THE TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS AT THAT TIME? NO, IT WAS, YES, THEY WERE, IT WAS THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS.
I BASED UPON, IT WAS NOT ON THE POSTING.
THE TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS BEFORE WAS CHANGED TO 10 AND 10 YEARS.
AND FOUR YEARS WERE COMPETITIVE.
AND PROMOTIONAL EXAMS WERE THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS.
SO IF YOU GO BACK TO APRIL 26TH, 2021, WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND THAT YOU'RE GONNA GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THERE, THOSE WILL GO BACK TO THE CURRENT TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WAS THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS.
I TOOK PLENTY ENOUGH, I TOOK ENOUGH OF, OF THE COMPETITIVE TEST.
I MEAN PROMOTIONAL TE COMPETITIVE TEST.
I'M READ, READ IT TO YOU AS IT PERTAINS TO ASSISTANT CHIEF TRAINING OFFICER.
THE CURRENT QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT READS MUST BE A REGULAR AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING IN A CLASS OF TRAINING OFFICE.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT READS MUST
[00:20:01]
BE A REGULAR AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN THE CLASS OF TRAINING OFFICER FOR FOUR YEARS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.YEAH, JOHN, AND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS THE CURRENT QU THE, THE PROPOSED YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE WANTING TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE BOARD APPROVED THE 10 AND FOUR RULE ON APRIL 26TH, 2020 ONE, TEN FOUR RULE, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN WHAT I JUST READ, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN THE 10, THE CURRENT 10 AND FOUR RULE THAT WE'RE UNDER.
CAUSE THE WAY IT SOUNDS TO ME IS THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO GO TO GO BACK ALL THE WAY TO APRIL BEFORE APRIL 26TH, 2021.
SO WHEN THAT, AT THE TIME WHEN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, THE 10 TO CHANGE THE, AND FOUR PRIOR TO THAT, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE AND PROMOTIONAL TESTS WERE THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.
THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOUR MOTION IS.
WELL, CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR.
MY MOTION, WHEN WE, WHEN WHEN A VOTE IS MADE, WHAT IT'S GONNA BE VOTED ON, IS IT GONNA BE THE CURRENT TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS ARE GONNA BE UPHELD OR THE, OR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS GONNA BE THE, WITH THE VERBIAGE CHANGE IS GONNA BE ADDED.
YOU WANNA REDO IT? THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE? YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THIS ISN'T SO, OKAY.
THIS IS WHAT MY MOTION WAS, IS WHAT SHE MEANT.
MR. SMITH'S MOTION WAS TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATE EXAMINER.
THE STATE EXAMINER IS SAYING IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER THAT THE BOARD JUST REMOVED THE CURRENT TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENT AND PROVIDE THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BE A REGULAR AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEE IN THE CLASS OF TRAINING OFFICER, FIRE APP APPARATUS TECHNICIAN, FIRE SAFETY OFFICER, FIRE COMMUNICATIONS, ONE ARSON INVESTIGATOR, FIRE INSPECTOR, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER, FIRE SERVICES AND SUPPLY TECHNICIAN AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO SUPPLY FOR TESTING IN A PROMOTIONAL CLASS.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO THE CURRENT, SO REMOVING THE CURRENT TIME AND GRADE REQUIREMENTS, REMOVE THE 10 AND FOUR RULE ALTOGETHER.
THAT'S WHAT THE OFFICE STATE EXAMINER IS RECOMMENDING.
SO CLARITY ON WHAT THE MOTION IS.
THAT THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION IS.
SO HOW LONG IS THE 10 AND FOUR RULE BIT IN PLACE? SINCE APRIL? IT'S APRIL 26TH OF, THAT'S THE APRIL 26TH CHANGE.
THAT, THAT'S WHEN THE TEN FOUR RULE WAS VOTED ON BY THIS BOARD AND APPROVED.
AND NOW YOU CURRENTLY HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ADD IN VERBIAGE TO SAY THAT ANYBODY THAT WAS IN A DIVISION, WHICH IS VERY VAGUE AT APRIL 26TH OF 21, WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE 10 AND FOUR RULE.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEING, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY TO BE VOTED ON CURRENTLY AS IT STANDS.
SO PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUIRE ON THE CHANGES IN VER IN VARIOUS SHOT.
SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED ACTUALLY IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD, IN MY, TO MY OPINION, MY OPINION IS JUST THE VERB, JUST THE VERBIAGE CHANGE THE VER BUT WE'RE TRYING TO DO A, WE'RE TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE 10 AND FOUR RULE ALTOGETHER AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS WHAT I, IS WHAT I'M HEARING.
MY MOTION WOULD DISREGARD NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA.
THAT'S WHY I MADE IT BEFORE WE VOTED ON THAT.
IF YOU WERE WAY WITH THE, IF WE VOTE ON THE VERBIAGE AND THEN ALLOW YOU GUYS TO GET BACK TOGETHER, WOULD THAT SUFFICE IF HELP THE PARTIES OR NO, IF THE CURRENT VOTE VERBIAGE CHANGE, IN MY OPINION IS VOTED, IS NOT VOTED ON TODAY, THEN LET THE DEPARTMENT, THE UNION, WHOEVER IT MAY BE, COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT ON WHAT IS A, IF WE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH 10 AND FOUR, LET'S CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE.
IF WE'RE HAPPY WITH 10 AND FOUR, ROLL WITH IT.
I MEAN, BUT THAT, I JUST WANNA CLEAR, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN POSTED FOR 30 DAYS AT OUR FIRE STATIONS HAS BEEN THE CHANGE IN THE VERBIAGE.
BUT THAT HASN'T, THAT'S NOT EVEN BEING THAT WHERE I'M HEARING IT'S NOT EVEN BEING VOTED ON RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT HE VOTED ON.
DISAGREE WITH THAT PART OF IT.
WHAT, WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING, THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE CLASS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY THAT RIGHT NOW THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS GRANDFATHERING PEOPLE IN.
RIGHT? WE CAN ALL AGREE WITH THAT.
THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS.
AFTER COMMENT AND DISCUSSION, IT MIGHT BE WE GRANDFATHER TWO OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVEN.
SO YOU CAN CHANGE ALL THAT STUFF UP.
AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT MR. UH, SMITH IS ASKING TO DO TO CHANGE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA GO WITH THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE, WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
WE'RE GONNA ACTUALLY LIMIT IT.
SO ALL WE'RE DOING IS AMENDING THE CLASS PLAN.
BUT WILL WE, WILL WE END UP IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE ADOPT WHAT THE STATE EXAMINER'S SAYING AND THEN COME BACK FOR CHANGES ANYWAY, WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY IS THAT WHAT I WOULD, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTED FOR 30 DAYS.
ANY CHANGES OTHER THAN WHAT? RIGHT.
SO SO WE JUST VOTE ON THE, I WOULD ACTUALLY RECOMMEND THAT Y'ALL DON'T DO ANYTHING.
SOUNDED LIKE I NEED TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND
UM, CAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE DOING MORE HOME BY NOT TAKING ACTION.
AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY I LIKE TO MAKE DECISIONS.
[00:25:01]
ULTIMATELY IS THE BOARD'S DECISION ON WHAT THE CLASS SPEC IS GONNA SAY.THAT'S THE BOARD'S DECISION, NOT THE UNION'S CALL.
NOT THE ADMINISTRATION'S CALL.
HOWEVER, FROM WHAT I HEAR, THE BOARD WANTS TO CONSIDER EVERYBODY'S POSITION.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S KIND OF TAKING PEOPLE OFF GUARD WITH THE STATE EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION.
BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, I, I WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD THOUGHTFUL, UM, UM, COMMENTS FROM THE, UH, UNION AND THE, THE ADMINISTRATION.
SO I WOULD DO SOMETHING SAKE OF DOING SOMETHING.
MIKE MAN, WHAT I LIKE, UH, ORIGINALLY WHAT I ASKED TO DO WAS, AND I ASKED CHIEF TO KIND OF GIVE ME THE, THE FALLOUT OF WHO THIS AFFECTS.
I DON'T THINK WE EVER REALLY GOT TO THAT POINT.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO CHALLENGE YOU GUYS TO DO IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR PEOPLE THAT, THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO, AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE THE LEADERSHIP OF YOUR DEPARTMENT.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IS BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE FROM THE STATE EXAMINER, UM, I NEED Y'ALL TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO BRING BACK TO US AT SOME POINT THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY VOTE ON.
YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, WE, WE ARE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE ARE HEARING THAT ALL SIDES.
BUT I'M GONNA RELY ON YOUR LEADERSHIP TO BRING US SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT CAN MOVE US PAST THIS POINT THAT WE'RE AT.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN, WE, WE COME TO YOU LAST MONTH.
NOW THE UNION HAS CHANGED THEIR VISION.
WELL, IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST THE UNION, IT'S THE STATE EXAMINER NOW HAS GIVEN US AN OPINION BASED UPON SAID CHANGES AND, UH, WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CHANGES MAY BE.
SO IT IT IS, IT IS NOT JUST THE UNION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND OF COURSE, IF WE TABLE IT, WE CAN HAVE THE, I HAVE THE TIME TO WORK IT OUT NEXT MONTH.
SORRY, BUT WE, I, WELL, WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS I DON'T WANT TO KEEP KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, RIGHT? SURE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE DOING.
WHY WE'VE POSTED THIS FOR 30 DAYS AND NOW WE, WE COULD EITHER VOTE ON THIS OR WE, WE CAN STILL VOTE ON THIS.
WE CAN, WE CAN VOTE ON THE ITEM OF THE, REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE VERBIAGE.
WE CAN, WE CAN DEFINITELY VOTE ON THAT PART.
IF YOU GUYS VOTE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO POST FOR 30 DAYS.
IF YOU TABLE IT, IT'S GONNA BE AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT, UH, MEETING.
IF WE VOTE FOR WHAT HE SAID, IF WE VOTE ON, IF YLL DENY THE CHANGE OF THE VERBIAGE.
IF YOU GUYS DENY THE CHANGE IN THE VERBIAGE, THE PUBLIC MEETING IS, IS OVER.
SO YOU HAVE TO THEN POST FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING.
IF YOU TABLE IT, THEN THE PUBLIC MEETING WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
I JUST DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO GET INTO A 30 DAY TRAP.
CAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING.
RIGHT? WHICH IS NOT 30 DAYS FROM NOW.
SO WE CAN TABLE THIS MATTER WITH THE INTENT OF YOU GUYS WORKING TO A SOLUTION.
UM, THAT AGAIN, WE PROBABLY RUN BY THE STATE EXAMINER AND MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT.
YEAH, WELL, I MEAN, TO THAT END, I WOULD SAY I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD TABLE IT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S GONNA BE VOTED ON ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
IS THAT MR. MR. MIKE CAN, CAN WE, CAN WE HAVE THIS, IS THIS REALISTIC BROWN? I MEAN D-DAY IS GONNA BE NEXT, NEXT MEETING, THEN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
RIGHT? WE'VE SAID IT FROM DAY ONE.
AND WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS, BUT WE'RE STAND WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.
WELL, I THINK THE BOARD IS DECIDED BY OUR NEXT MEETING.
WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GONNA VOTE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO, UM, WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE TO NEXT MONTH.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE SINCE OUR SECOND ORIGINAL MOTION.
I WAS WAITING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE.
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND FORM.
RIGHT? SO IF WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND FOR THE ORIGINAL MOTION, IT DIES FOR WHAT? ORIGINAL MOTION.
IN THAT CASE THEN, MR. CHAN, I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THE MATTER.
UH, SO LIKE I SAID, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE THIS MO WE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE ONE MORE TIME AND, UH, HOPEFULLY WE COULD COME TO AGREEMENT AND, UM, NOT AGREE OR NOT AGREE
[00:30:01]
ALL RIGHT.[5. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms in Fire Department and Police Department]
MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE.UH, CONSIDER THE MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS. I GAVE SOMETHING UP THERE TO YOU.
[6. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Applications]
MOVING ON TO NUMBER SIX.CONSIDER MOTIONS TO APPROVE OR REJECT APPLICATIONS.
WE HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS, NO APPLICATIONS AT THIS TIME.
[7. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Results of Examinations.]
ALL RIGHT.MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
CONSIDER MOTIONS TO APPROVE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION.
[8. Consider Motion to Call for Examination(s)]
TO, UH, NOW ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, CONSIDER A MOTION TO CALL FOR EXAMINATIONS.DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO CALL FOR? NO NEW APPLICATIONS? NO.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.
IS IT TOO LATE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AN EXAM OR SOMEBODY CONTACT ONE NOT TO CALL FOR ONE? NO.
UM, WE CAN GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER.
IS IT TIME TO CALL FOR ONE? UH, SERGEANT'S EXAM? I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE A CALL FOR THE SERGEANT'S EXAM, DON'T WE? OR WE DID CALL FOR ONE, WE DID CALL FOR THE SERGEANT'S EXAM.
CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY BEGAN SEEING IT.
RECEIVE AN APPLICATION FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
[9. Discussion related to Sgt. Joseph Dargin’s prior request to take Lieutenant’s Examination]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.DISCUSSION RELATED TO SERGEANT JOSEPH DARIN'S PRIOR REQUEST TO LIEUTENANT'S EXAMINATION.
SERGEANT DARIN? YEAH, HE'S HERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP? MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? UH, SERGEANT JOSEPH DOGEN, BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, I KNOW MY, MY SITUATION HAS BEEN ON THE BOARD, I THINK FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.
UH, I WAS DEPLOYED DURING THE LAST EXAMINATION, UH, AND UPON MY RETURN, UM, I MADE A REQUEST WHERE IT WAS SEVERAL MONTHS LATER THAT I MADE A REQUEST TO TAKE THE EXAM.
UH, APPARENTLY THIS WAS NEW TO EVERYONE I SPOKE WITH, UH, CUZ THERE WAS A RULE IN PLACE WHERE EVERYTHING HAD TO BE DONE WITHIN 90 DAYS, WHICH I THINK IS ON THE AGENDA FOR YOU GUYS TO TALK ABOUT THIS TIME.
UH, CUZ I MADE IT PAST THAT 90 DAYS.
UH, BUT WE'RE CONTINUING FORWARD TO SEE IF I CAN, UH, BE APPROVED TO TAKE THE EXAMINATION.
UH, AND THAT'S, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL TIMELINE WHEN THE TEST WAS GIVEN, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY BEGAN TO TRY TO TAKE THE TEST AFTER THE 90 DAYS? UH, IT WAS IN MAY.
UH, SO HOW LONG WAS IT? JOHN DIDIER WAS STILL ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME WHEN I MADE THE INITIAL REQUEST.
BUT THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT ELAPSED, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS? WELL, I'M SORRY.
WELL, MY 90 WHEN I RETURNED BACK TO WORK, IT WAS AUGUST OF 2021.
UH, SO I MADE THE REQUEST IN MAY OF 20 OF THIS YEAR.
SO ESSENTIALLY THERE'S A BOARD RULE THAT SAYS WHEN A PERSON'S GONE ON DEPLOYMENT, THEY HAVE TO FILE THEIR APPLICATION WITHIN TO TAKE AN EXAM WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
UH, SERGEANT DARON MISSED THAT WINDOW.
UH, SO I GUESS WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU MISSED THE WINDOW.
SO IT HAS TO BE TURNED IN WITHIN A CERTAIN, WITHIN 90 DAYS OF HIS RETURN FROM DEPLOYMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WELL, IT'S WITHIN HIS RETURN, 90 DAYS WITHIN RETURN OF HIS DEPLOYMENT.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING HOW MUCH TIME HAD IT LAPSED? HOW MUCH TIME HAD, FROM WHEN WE, HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU BEEN BACK FROM DEPLOYMENT? OUR RETURNED BACK TO DUTY AUGUST OF 2021.
AND, AND WHEN DID YOU TURN? TRY TO, IT HAD BEEN A YEAR, ALMOST THAT DATE WAS HERE IN AUGUST.
I RETURNED IN AUGUST AND I MADE THE REQUEST TO, UH, JOHN DOT BACK IN MAY.
UH, THAT'S WHEN I MADE A, I WAS MADE AWARE, UH, THAT A TEST WOULD NOT BE GIVEN.
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS JUST WHY DIDN'T, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE 90 DAYS? WHY DIDN'T YOU COMPLY WITH THE 90 DAYS
[00:35:01]
RULE.UM, SO THEY SHOULD BE CALLING FOR THE TEST AGAIN IN FEBRUARY.
ACTUALLY, UH, I WAS GONNA SAY THIS WHOLE ISSUE MAY BE MOVED.
I THINK THE TEST IS UP NOW, RIGHT? CAN'T YOU JUST APPLY TO TAKE THIS TEST FOR THIS CURRENT GO ROUND? WHAT TEST ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE? LIEUTENANT? HE DID APPLY.
UH, BUT I, I CALLED AROUND MYSELF BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY FELL INTO MY LAP.
UM, BUT I CONTACTED, UH, EVEN ADMINISTRATION.
NOBODY WAS AWARE THAT APPARENTLY ROUGE HAD ITS OWN SET OF RULES REGARDING MM-HMM.
UM, BUT YEAH, HE DID JUST APPLY TO TAKE IT, UH, WHEN THE NEW EXAM POSTED IT.
SO FOR, SO HE'S ELIGIBLE FOR THE CURRENT, DID THEY POST FOR IT? THEY JUST RECENTLY POSTED OCTOBER 17TH THROUGH, WHEN DID IT EXPIRE? UH, WELL, 10 DAYS.
10 DAYS OR 20 FOR 10 FOR Y'ALL.
DID YOU GET YOUR APPLICATION IN, IN TIME FOR THE, FOR THE NEXT TEST? YES, SIR.
IT'S A NON-ISSUE THEN, BUT IT'S A NON-ISSUE NOW.
WELL, THE ONLY CONCERN IS WHEN THE ACTUAL EXAM WILL BE TAKEN AND THEN WE HAVE TO WAIT ON SCORES THAT BE RETURNED, UM, AND THEN POSTED AND THEN HE SHOULD BE UP FOR, WELL, I THINK HE PROBABLY GOT PASSED UP ALREADY AND THEN HE'LL PROBABLY BE PASSED UP AGAIN IF THEY'RE NOT POSTED IN TIME.
WELL, EVEN IF WE APPROVED HIS APPLICATION TODAY, IT'S UP TO THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE WHEN THEY GIVE THE TEST AGAIN.
SO, I MEAN, EVEN IF LIKE, SAY WE APPROVED HIM TO TAKE THE TEST TO DATE, THE BOARD DID APPROVE HIM.
WHEN MR. DOER BROUGHT THIS TO, UH, THE BOARD.
THEN WE WERE MADE AWARE OUTSIDE OF THE, WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE RULE.
SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT? UM, THERE'S TWO ISSUES GOING ON, MR. ROBINSON.
FIRST, DO WE ALLOW MR. DARDEN TO TAKE SERGEANT DARDEN? I APOLOGIZE.
TO TAKE THE MAKEUP TEST BASED ON OUR PRIOR RULING, UH, WHEN MR. DOER BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION, UH, IF MR. IF THE BOARD WAS SATISFIED.
SO IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO INTERPRET ITS OWN RULES AND THE REMEDY FOR VIOLATING THOSE RULES.
UM, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS KIND OF RELATED.
SINCE HE'S APPLIED FOR THE CURRENT LIEUTENANT TEST, IT'S NO LONGER A MAKEUP TEST.
UM, DOES THE PROBLEM KIND OF FIX ITSELF? AND MS. DORSEY IS BRINGING UP THE POINT THAT WELL, POTENTIALLY, BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHEN HIS SCORES COME BACK.
AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE STATE EXAMINER IS THAT, HEY, IF WE WAIVE THE RULE ON THE MAKEUP, THEY WOULD ALLOW MR. DARON TO TAKE THE TEST.
MY CAUTION TO THE BOARD IS YOU DO FOR ONE.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SHOULD HE BE TAKING A MAKEUP TEST THAT'S RETROACTIVE.
I MEAN, WHEN IT COMES TO, WELL, THE MAKEUP TEST WOULD INSINUATE THAT WE AS A BOARD PROBABLY DID SOMETHING INCORRECTLY AND ALLOWED WELL, I I'LL GO BACK AND SAY THAT, UM, THERE WAS SOME FAULT OF HIM NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE THE TEST.
WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON OR THE BASIS FOR THE MAKEUP TEST? BECAUSE HE WAS OUTSIDE THE 90 DAYS.
YEAH, BECAUSE IS THAT A, IS THAT A RULE? YES.
WELL THEN HE WAS OUTSIDE THE 90 DAYS.
SO THERE, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO ALLOW A MAKEUP TEST BASED ON MY INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE.
SO WHICH LEAVES US AT HIM BEING ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE UPCOMING TEST, WHICH WE DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH OTHER THAN MAKING SURE THAT, UM, THE TIMELINES ARE MET.
SO WHENEVER SHE BRINGS THE APPLICATIONS NEXT MONTH, WE'LL APPROVE HIS APPLICATION TO TAKE THE CURRENT POSTING.
SO Y'ALL HAVE A SET OF THESE BATON ROUGE RULES.
THEY'RE ON THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER'S WEBSITE FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE.
YOU NEED TO GET TO, IF YOU GO UNDER JURISDICTION TO GO TO BATON ROUGE, IT'LL BE, IT'S UNDER THERE.
[00:40:01]
OH, THIS, THIS IS BEFORE MY TIME.YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RULE.
I GUESS I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHY NOBODY KNEW ABOUT THIS.
IF IT'S A STANDARD, IT'S A BATON ROUGE SPECIFIC RULE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FOR EXAMS ALL OVER ALL THE TIME.
IT WASN'T EVER OUTSIDE OF THE 90 DAY.
THAT'S WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
EVERYBODY ELSE APPLIED WITHIN THE 90 DAYS.
SO SOMEBODY KNEW THERE WAS A 90 DAY LIMIT.
THAT'S MR. DARSON HAS TO EXPLAIN WHY HE DIDN'T DO THAT.
I MEAN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR, HE MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOWN IT WAS A 90 DAY LAW.
AND I SPOKE TO PEOPLE IN ADMINISTRATION WHO WASN'T AWARE EITHER, BUT THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
HE, EVERYBODY ELSE APPLIED WITHIN THE 90 DAYS.
PROBABLY AN OVERSIGHT FOR ME, BUT I READ THE BA EXAMINER'S RULES AND I DIDN'T SEE IT.
IS IT IN THERE, MYRON? I MEAN, I MEAN, I COULD LOOK IT UP, BUT I MEAN, NO, IT'S IN THERE.
HE DIDN'T, YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW EITHER.
MYRON DANIELS? UH, I'M NOT 100% SURE.
UH, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE DEPLOYED AND UPON THEIR RETURN, NORMALLY IT'S ALMOST INSTANT THAT THEY DO APPLY FOR THAT'S RIGHT.
THOSE EXEMPTIONS AND THOSE TESTS.
THAT JUST MAY HAVE BEEN THE, THE PROCESS.
BUT NO, I WAS NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH IT.
I, I KNEW THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO TAKE A MAKEUP TEST.
I JUST DID NOT KNOW THE TIME FRAME MYSELF THOUGH.
BUT, UH, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I THAT I CAN GIVE YOU NOW AS FAR AS, AND JUST TO ADD A LITTLE IN MORE INFORMATION, UH, AS FAR AS SERGEANT DARON GOES, HIS SENIORITY IS NOT AFFECTED.
UH, HE PROBABLY THE MOST SENIOR, SO, OR ONE OF THE MOST SENIORS.
SO HE'LL MOVE UP TO WHERE HE WOULD BE, EVEN IF HE HAD A TEST SCORE TODAY.
SO HIS SENIORITY STILL GOES INTO EFFECT ONCE THAT TEST SCORE? ONCE THE PROMOTION, YES.
OH, HE WON'T BE PAST, HE'LL MOVED UP.
ONCE THAT TEST SCORE IS IN PLACE, HE, HIS SENIORITY, HE'LL JUMP TO WHERE HE WOULD BE IF HE HAD A SCORE TODAY.
SO MS. DORSE, HE WOULD JUMP TO THE TOP OF THE CURRENT ELIGIBILITY LIST.
IF SOMEONE'S ALREADY BEEN PROMOTED, THEN, I MEAN, THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN PROMOTED, SO HE WON'T BE PASSED OVER THAT, THAT I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
THERE'S A LOT OF DECISIONS THAT GO INTO PROMOTIONS AND IT'S NOT BASED PURELY ON SENIORITY ANYMORE.
AND, UH, SO I, I CAN'T SAY THAT HE WON'T GET THE NEXT PROMOTION BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE NEXT VACANCY IS OR THE EXPERIENCE NEEDED FOR THAT.
FIRST OFF, I WANNA SAY I DON'T OBJECT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND I'M NOT OBJECTING OF YOU.
YOU COULD TAKE THE TEST YESTERDAY.
I'M, I'M, I'M, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE OPERATING WITHIN OUR RULES, MAKING A PROMOTION TODAY.
BUT SINCE WE'VE CALLED FOR THE TEST, YOU'VE GOT YOUR APPLICATION IN FOR THE CURRENT TEST.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY FASTER WAY THAT WE CAN GET YOU A SCORE, UH, THEN JUST DOING IT RIGHT NOW, LIKE WE DOING IT SO FAR.
AND THERE'LL BE NO DEFINITION IN HIS, IN HIS, UH, UM, SERVICE, SO, YOU KNOW.
HE'S STILL GONNA MOVE TO WHATEVER RANKS AND ONCE YOU MAKE MOTION, YOU'LL STILL GO UP TO THE TOP OF YOUR, WELL, YOU'LL GO WHERE YOU'LL FALL IN LINE WHERE YOU WERE.
HAD YOU NOT EVEN WENT DEPLOYED.
MR. IVA WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT, BUT, UH, PERSONALLY, I'VE KNOWN MR. DARON FOR A VERY LONG TIME BACK IN THE NINETIES.
I HOPE THE BOARD WOULD DO WHATEVER TO ACCOMMODATE HIM TO GET HIS TEST CORDS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
SECOND, MAYBE IF THIS IS SOMETHING VERY UNIQUE TO BATON ROUGE, MAYBE THIS BOARD WOULD QUESTION WHY THAT RULE IS IN PLACE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN 90 DAYS.
I CAN'T IMAGINE QUITE FEW OF US.
YOU KNOW, THIS DAY AND AGE, VERY FEW OF US CAN IMAGINE THE BURDENS ON RETURNING VETERANS BECAUSE SO FEW OF US ARE.
UH, AND GIVEN THAT THAT IS SUCH A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE AND BURDEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, UH, I MEAN A LOT OF YOU FOLKS WHO DO GET CALLED UP ARE, UH, ARE ALSO POLICE OFFICERS WHEN THEY'RE CIVILIANS.
UH, I HOPE YOU WOULD EITHER REVISIT THAT RULE TO MAYBE GET RID OF IT, UH, LENGTHEN THE TIME THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UH, TO APPLY.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE RULE MYSELF, BUT I WAS TOLD IT WAS 30 DAYS.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MR. WITH WHAT MR. IVY JUST SAID AS WELL.
I THINK ANYBODY THAT IT'S A SILLY RULE'S TO SERVICE THE RULE A VETERANS TURN FOR IT.
AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE 10 AND FOUR, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST NEVER KNOW.
[00:45:01]
IS YOUR PLEASURE ON ITEM NUMBER NINE RELATED TO, UH, SERGEANT JOSEPH DAGANS? I SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE NO ACTION.IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL, I'LL SECOND.
WE LET YOU WISH YOU LUCK, SIR.
[10. Hear and Consider multiple Motions for Summary Disposition in re Camallo]
RIGHT.MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 HERE AND CONSIDER MULTIPLE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN RE OF KA KALO.
YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT? UH, SHORT.
UH, IF WE COULD TAKE OUT OF ORDER, I GUESS IT'S NUMBER 11.
AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION AT NUMBER 10.
NO, UH, DISCUSSION I HAD WITH MR. UH, DRA EARLIER, UM, IN REFERENCE TO, UH, THE BELIEF THAT WADE HILL, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, UH, BILLY MATTINGLY'S, UH, HEARING WAS SET ON A NOVEMBER DATE, MR. D, IS THAT, THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, BILLY BILL MATTINGLY WAS FOR NOVEMBER, AND, UH, MR. IVY IS GONNA SUBSTITUTE IN FOR THAT MATTER.
AND MR. RAINS HAS A CONFLICT WITH THE DATE ANYWAY, SO I'M HOPING WE CAN PUSH THAT INTO NEXT YEAR.
AND, AND I GUESS, UH, I'LL APPEAR ON THE DATE IN NOVEMBER TO SEE, I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY FROM MR. UH, UH, REES'S OFFICE, UH, WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE IT, TO HELP SCHEDULE IT, BUT, UH, MR. KERSHAW WOULD BE WITH THE WITHDRAWING ATTORNEY.
I'M THE, UH, ENROLLING ATTORNEY.
UH, I'VE GOT THE MOTION PREPARED.
IT'S BEEN SIGNED BY MR. KERSHAW.
UH, AND UH, ALSO BEFORE I CUT OUT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, ARE YOU SCHEDULING MR. HILL'S APPEAL TODAY? WELL, SO WE WERE ORIGINALLY GONNA PLAN A SCHEDULE, BUT I DON'T THINK MR. UH, GRIM HAS, UH, ACCESS TO RANGE'S CALENDAR.
SO WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.
AND WHEN I CAN CHECK WITH HIM AND SEE IF HE RESPONDS TO ME, BUT I WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP AT THE NEXT MEETING THEN, IN TERMS OF SCHEDULE.
AND THAT DATE WOULD BE NOVEMBER 21ST, I BELIEVE IS THE, OKAY.
HEY, SORRY ABOUT TAKING THAT OUT OF ORDER.
JUST DIDN'T WANT HIM SITTING AROUND WAITING FOR THIS.
COULD TAKE A LITTLE LONGER THAN THAT.
UM, SO, UM, KYLE KHAW ON BEHALF OF, UM, FORMER SERGEANT KENNETH CAMELO, UM, WE'VE BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ON THIS MATTER.
WE HAVE BEEN RESET TO ARGUE A COUPLE OF MOTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED THAT I HAVE FILED ON BEHALF OF SERGEANT CAMELO, UH, FOR TODAY.
UM, SO YOU WANT ME TO JUST ARGUE ONE MOTION AND WHAT, LET'S JUST ARGUE ONE Y'ALL RULE ON THAT AND THEN WE'LL TAKE THE NEXT MOTION UP.
THE FIRST ONE I WOULD, UM, LIKE TO ADDRESS IS THE ONE WHERE IT'S IA FILE NUMBER 0 1 3 DASH 21.
SO IS THIS THE ONE WHERE WE SAID THEY COULDN'T RUN CONCURRENT? I'M LOOKING AT ALL THESE, THIS IS THAT CASE.
SO WHAT DID WE, DO YOU WANNA GIVE YOU A PROCEDURAL? YEAH.
REMIND ME OF WHAT WE CAME UP WITH ON THAT AND PLEASE DO.
SO, UM, WE WERE HERE ORIGINALLY, AND I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO TELL YOU THE EXACT DATE, BUT, UM, WE CAME HERE AND THERE WAS BEFORE WE, WE WERE SET FOR A HEARING AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BECAUSE AT THE TIME, UM, MR. MAUI, WHO WAS ON THE BOARD HAD GOTTEN AN OPINION FROM THE STATE EXAMINER STATING THAT THE DISCIPLINE THAT WAS HANDED DOWN, IN THIS CASE IT WAS 200 DAYS ED.
AND THEY SAID, WELL, THAT'S NOT PROPER DISCIPLINE BECAUSE OF LAW.
IF THERE'S NO INTENTION TO TERMINATE, YOU CAN ONLY DO 90 DAYS OUT OF IT.
SO WE WENT THROUGH THAT BOARD RULED, AND WE HAD, UM, A JUDICIAL PETITION FOR JUDICIAL WAS REVIEW WAS FILED AT THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MM-HMM.
AND BEFORE THE RULING ON THAT, WE CAME BACK, WE ARGUED THESE VERY, THESE MOTIONS.
BUT THE AGREEMENT WAS, OR THE DECISION OF THE BOARD WAS, LOOK, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AUTHORITY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN
[00:50:01]
DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE THIS IS PENDING OVER THE 19TH MM-HMM.SO BASICALLY, WE'RE BACK HERE TODAY TO RE-ARGUE THOSE MOTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP.
I CAN'T EVEN TELL YOU WHEN THAT WAS.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT WAS OUR EARLIER THIS YEAR.
SO DID WE SEND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF? YEAH.
SO FOR RECONSIDERATION, LET ME LEMME BACK UP EVEN FURTHER.
WE CAME HERE, THERE WAS THE, UM, DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS STATING, UM, WITH SOME CONCERNS DUE TO THE, UM, EXAM, STATE EXAMINER'S OPINION THAT IT WAS IMPROPER DISCIPLINE.
THEN IT WAS MOVED AND, OR IT WAS DECIDED BY THE BOARD VOTED ON THAT TO SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE CHIEF AND THE EXACT, UH, VERBIAGE OF THE DECISION AND WHAT WAS IN THE MINUTES WAS TO RECONSIDER THE DISCIPLINE.
SO HE, THEY DID, THE DEPARTMENT DID REISSUED, UM, THREE NEW LETTERS AND THEY, UM, THEY, THEY MADE THE TIME TO RUN CONSECUTIVE INSTEAD OF CONCURRENT.
SO IT WAS LESS THAN 90 DAYS AGGREGATE.
AND SO IT COMPLIED WITH STATUTE AND THAT'S WHEN THE JUDICIAL REVIEW IS FILED.
WE WENT, UH, TO THE 19TH AND IN THE INTERIM, WE CAME HERE FOR THESE, THESE MOTIONS THAT WERE HERE TODAY.
UNTIL THERE'S A RULING ON THAT WE NEED TO PUNT THIS UNTIL THERE'S, UM, UNTIL WE HAVE THE GUIDANCE FROM THE 19TH.
AND WHAT WAS THE RULING AT THE 19TH DO? THE JUDGE SAID THAT WAS IN YOUR DISCRETION? THE BOARD'S DISCRETION TO SEND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF.
THEY WERE ARGUMENTS AND THAT WE DIDN'T DO THAT.
AND HE RECONSIDERED AND THESE THAT ARE CURRENT.
SO YEAH, THE CHIEF, WELL, HE, HE HAD RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO THAT AND REISSUED THREE NEW LETTERS.
UM, AND I WILL TAKE, I GUESS AN ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH THOSE LETTERS UP IN MY NEXT MOTION.
BUT YEAH, HE REISSUED NEW LETTERS, GIVING NEW DISCIPLINE, PAIRING IT DOWN, BUT MAKING THEM CONSECUTIVE.
SO THIS, IT HAD THE SAME END RESULT, BUT JUST A DIFFERENT WAY TO GET THERE.
SO IS THAT, EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.
NOW WE'RE HERE TODAY,
SO, UH, ONCE AGAIN THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A FIRST ONLY DEALS WITH IA FILE NUMBER 0 1 3 21.
UM, AND DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THAT, I GUESS THE MOTION IN MEMORANDUM THAT HAD BEEN FILED AGES AGO ON THIS? THERE'S A LOT OF PAPERWORK.
IS THAT THE ONE THAT STARTS WITH MAY PLEASE? THE BOARD? IS THAT, THAT THE ONE, I'M SORRY.
THIS ONE, IT WAS ACTUALLY FILED OCTOBER 25 OF 21.
I DON'T THINK THEY CAN'T TELL.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE DATES ON THEM.
THAT WAS HANDWRITTEN BY MS. PENNY ON THIS.
I GUESS MY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HAS OCTOBER 23 OF 21 ON IT.
THAT'D BE ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE MOTION.
AND ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, THE CAPTION, IT'S GONNA SAY IA FILE NUMBER 0 1 3 DASH 21 AND ONLY HAVE THE ONE NUMBER.
I DUNNO, WE JUST SWITCH ANYWAY.
I WILL JUST GO AHEAD AND YEAH, I GET THE ARGUMENT.
WELL THIS ONE'S, I MEAN, THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, UM, ISSUE AT THE TIME OF THIS, UM, THE FILING WELL AT, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE AND THE FILING OF THIS, UM, THIS MOTION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, AND I KNOW Y'ALL HEARD, UH, ME AS WELL AS OTHER ATTORNEYS HERE BEFORE YOU ARGUING ISSUES CONCERNING THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS MM-HMM.
UM, SO, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IF, IF THE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO COMPLETE THEIR INVESTIGATION, UM, WITHIN 60 DAYS, THEN IT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE NOVELTY.
AND THE THERE CAN BE NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN.
WHAT THE, THE CONCLUSION OF AN INVESTIGATION
[00:55:01]
IS THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE DISCIPLINARY LETTER, THE LETTER NOTIFYING THE OFFICER, HEY, WE'RE CONSIDERING TAKING ACTION, WE'RE SETTING YOU FOR HEARING ON THIS DATE.AND THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE'RE, UM, CONSIDERING TAKING THIS ACTION.
SO IT'S ALWAYS BEEN HOW IT, IT HAS BEEN AT THAT TIME THAT THAT'S, THAT LETTER IS THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THAT HAS TO BE DONE AT LEAST BY DAY 60.
UM, IN THIS MATTER, THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN ON JANUARY 14TH, 2021.
ON THAT LETTER, UM, ON THE LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IT SET A DEADLINE OF MARCH 14TH, 2021.
UM, THE, THE DATE AT, ON THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY LETTER WAS MARCH 12 OF 21.
IT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY SERGEANT CAMELO UNTIL AT LEAST MARCH 16TH, 2021.
UM, THE ISSUE, THE, THE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALWAYS WORKED UP TILL THIS TIME HAS BEEN THEY CALL THE OFFICER IN AND THE OFFICER ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY SIGNS THE LETTER.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INSTANCES WHERE THE OFFICER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON DUTY AT THE TIME WHERE EMAIL IT AND THEN THEY INTRODUCE A CERTIFICATE OF RECEIPT, THEY DO A READ RECEIPT ON AN EMAIL.
BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, WHAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED IS DATED MARCH 16.
SO IT'S AFTER THE 60 DAY DEADLINE.
UM, THE FACT THAT THIS FELL OUTSIDE OF THE 60 DAYS REQUIRES THIS TO BE AN ABSOLUTE NUTY AND FOR THE, UM, DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO BE SET ASIDE.
UM, THAT'S CLEAR WORDING OF THE STATUTE, THE POLICE OFFICER OF BILL OF RIGHTS, THE, UM, IF YOU'LL SEE IN THE MEMORANDUM, I FILED HERE AND I ATTACHED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SERGEANT CAMPBELLS.
HE WAS OFF OF WORK FROM MARCH 12 THROUGH MARCH 16.
HE WAS, LIKE I SAID, OFF OF WORK AND ON HIS OWN NOT HOLDING TO THE DEPARTMENT DURING THAT TIME.
UM, I KNOW I TRIED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, UM, TO ASSIST THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, OFFICER.
AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, SERGEANT CAMELO WAS JUST, I GUESS YOU WANNA SAY OFF THE GRID, HE WAS, IT WAS HIS TIME, HIS PERSONAL TIME.
OBVIOUSLY, THE DEPARTMENT CAN'T EXPECT YOU TO BE ON DUTY 24 7.
EVERY OFFICER, EVERY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN FREE TIME.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS HE WAS ON HIS FREE TIME, HE RETURNS BACK TO WORK ON MAR MARCH 16, WHICH IS WHEN HE ACTUALLY OPENED THE EMAIL.
BUT THAT'S AFTER THE 60 DAY DEADLINE.
THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR, UM, OPPOSITION POINTS TO, WELL WE TRIED, WE SENT HIM AN EMAIL, WE SENT HIM, UM, WE SENT HIM AN EMAIL AND WE SENT HIM A TEXT AND, AND WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE.
WELL, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S FINE THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.
BUT IT'S UPON NOTICE TO THE OFFICER.
AND NOTICE ONCE AGAIN HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ACTUAL SIGNING OF THE LETTER, OR LATELY, OVER THE PAST YEAR OR TWO, IT'S BEEN THE, THAT WHEN THAT RE REED RECEIPT SHOWING THAT THE OFFICER ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE EMAIL, YOU KNOW, SERGEANT CAMPBELL STATED IN HIS DEPOSITION, I DIDN'T SEE THAT EMAIL UNTIL I CAME BACK TO WORK ON MARCH 16.
I WASN'T CHECKING MY PHONES, I WASN'T CHECKING MY EMAILS, I WAS OUT AND, AND ENJOYING MY OWN FREE TIME AWAY FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
SO LIKE YOU SAID, BY LAW, THAT'S A VIOLATION.
CAN I, UH, YOU, YOU ORIGINALLY STATED THAT THE EMAIL HAD A READ RECEIPT MECHANISM AND IT DID NOT, OR DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE SAW IT ON MARCH 16TH WAS WHEN HE READ THAT HE GOT THE EMAIL.
SO WHICH WAS AFTER THE, WHICH IS AFTER THE 60 DAY DEADLINE.
UM, SO THAT IS NOT, UM, JUST BECAUSE THEIR EFFORTS TO SEND THAT TO 'EM, UM, ARE COMMENDABLE, THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE AND NOR DOES IT COMPLY WITH HOW THE DEPARTMENT FOR YEARS HAS BEEN DOING THIS, WHICH IS THE OFFICER COMES IN AND SIGNS, PHYSICALLY SIGNS TO NOTICE.
NOW I WILL BRANCH YOU, YOU KNOW, THIS, THE LAW WAS CHANGED EARLIER OR AFTER THIS, BUT IN 2021 TO STATE THAT NOW, WELL THEY'VE EXTENDED THE DEADLINES IN 75 DAYS FOR STARTERS.
BUT WHAT THEY ALSO DID WAS SAY, OKAY, NOW IT'S GONNA BE NOTICE IT WILL SUFFICE AS NOTICE TO THE OFFICER THAT WHEN AN EMAIL IS SENT TO HIS DEPARTMENTALLY ISSUED EMAIL, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT, THAT WAS NOT THE LAW AT THE TIME THAT THIS OCCURRED.
AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PLENTY OF CASE LAW STATING THAT WHEN THE LEGISLATURE
[01:00:01]
CHANGES THE LAW, WHEN THEY CHANGE THE WORDING OF A STATUTE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THEIR INTENT WAS TO ACTUALLY CHANGE THE LAW.AND I'LL CITE YOU, YOU KNOW, CUZ THIS IS NOT IN A MEMO, BUT THERE'S THE, UM, STATE VERSUS JOHNSON, WHICH IS A SUPREME COURT CASE FROM 2004, UM, AND MORRE VERSUS YOUNG.
AND THEY ALSO CITE SWAT 24, FREEPORT BOER VERSUS BOND.
THESE ARE ALL SUPREME COURT CASES, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THEIR QUOTE IS, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CHANGES THE WORDING OF A STATUTE, IT IS PRESUMED YOU HAVE INTENDED A CHANGE IN THE LAW.
WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS CASE.
THE LAW JUST SAID ORIGINALLY UPON NOTICE AND NOW THEY SAY, WELL NO, IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED NOTICE IF THEY SEND YOU AN EMAIL TO YOUR DEPARTMENT ISSUED EMAIL.
AND THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER ISSUES, BUT THAT'S A CHANGE IN THE LAW.
AND THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WASN'T THE LAW AT THE TIME.
AND THAT'S WHEN THEY MAKE, WHEN THEY WRITE THAT INTO THE LAW AND ACTUALLY CHANGE LAW, THEY'RE ACKNOWLEDGING, WELL THAT WASN'T THE LAW AT THE TIME OF THIS, THAT THAT WASN'T THE PREVIOUS LAW.
SO LIKE I SAID, THAT'S A, IT'S A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
HE DIDN'T GET HIS NOTICE UNTIL AFTER 60 DAYS.
UM, AND THAT RENDERS THIS AN ABSOLUTE KNOW, WAS THERE AN EXTENSION FILED FOR IT WAS THERE AN EXTENSION FILE? THERE WAS NOT.
RIGHT? OH, IF, IF THEY DID, I WOULDN'T BE UP HERE ARGUING THIS.
BUT I'LL JUST MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN, THAT OR KNOWS THAT THEY CAN FILE FOR AN EXTENSION.
I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP.
THE, UM, THAT, THAT IS AN AVENUE TO EXTEND EVERYTHING.
IF THEY'RE RUNNING INTO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RUNNING UP A BACKUP AGAINST A WALL ON THIS.
AND AS ATTORNEYS, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.
WE HAVE DEADLINES THAT WE HAVE TO MEET, AND SOMETIMES YOU JUST REALIZE, THIS IS IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
YOU'LL IMMEDIATELY FILE FOR AN EXTENSION, FOR A CONTINUANCE, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE HERE.
SO THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T DO IT, AND THEY WENT PAST THE 60 DAYS, ONCE AGAIN, RENDERED IT IN ABSOLUTE KNOW.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS DREW GRAM.
UM, I KNOW, KNOW, Y'ALL ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH MR. RAINS.
I'M ONE OF, UM, JIM'S LAW PARTNERS, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES TODAY.
UM, I THINK IT'S CLEAR TO LOOK AT THE, THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE.
THE STATUTE SAYS THE INVESTIGATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UPON NOTICE TO THE POLICE EMPLOYEE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING OR DETERMINATION OF AN UNDER UNFOUNDED OR UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINT.
UM, COUNSEL USED THE WORD RECEIPT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, RECEIPTS, NOT IN THE STATUTE.
IT SAYS, NOTICE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, NOTHING IN THE STATUTE PROHIBITED EMAIL NOTICE.
UH, COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE, THE CHANGE IN THE LAW WAS MEANT TO BE A CHANGE IN THE LAW.
I'LL SUBMIT TO YOU, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE LAW.
THERE WAS AN ADDITION TO THE LAW, IN ADDITION TO CLARIFY WHAT NOTICE WAS MEANT, UH, WHAT THE WORD NOTICE MEANT.
AND NOTICE IN THE NEW LAW INCLUDES SENDING, UH, THE OFFICER TO HIS DEPARTMENTAL EMAIL, THE, THE REQUIRED NOTICE.
BUT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT PROHIBITED.
THERE'S NO CASES OUT THERE THAT SAY ACTUAL RECEIPTS REQUIRED.
UM, THAT, THAT HAS INTERPRETED THIS NOTICE TO MEAN ACTUAL RECEIPT.
UH, JUST A, A BRIEF RUNDOWN HERE.
I, THERE THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT REGARDING THE FACTS.
I DON'T THINK, UM, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH COUNSEL THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DEADLINE HERE, I THINK THE DEADLINE'S ACTUALLY CALCULATED TO, TO MARCH 15TH.
UM, THE LETTER SAID MARCH 14TH, BUT THAT'S KIND OF IRRELEVANT.
UH, THE POINT IS, IS THAT THE IA INVESTIGATOR, UM, ATTEMPTED TO BEGIN CONTACT WITH, UH, WITH THE SERGEANT ON MARCH 12TH AT 4 0 1.
TRIED TO GIVE HIM A CALL TO ASK HIM TO COME IN AT FIVE FIFTY FOUR, GAVE HIM A CALL TO ASK HIM TO COME IN, WASN'T SUCCESSFUL.
CALLED HIM AGAIN THE NEXT DAY AT 6:52 PM ASKED HIM TO COME IN IN THE MIDST OF THAT, EMAILED HIM ON MARCH 12TH, ASKED HIM TO COME IN OR CALL 'EM AND ATTACH TO THE NOTE.
THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS ATTACHED TO THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY NOTICE HERE ON MARCH 12TH.
EMAILED TO HIM, UM, EMAILED HIM AGAIN ON MARCH 14TH, ASKED HIM TO COME IN.
AND THEN, UH, ANOTHER METHOD TEXTED, UH, WITH MR. KERSHAW'S ATTORNEY ON THE 13TH AND TEXTED HIM THREE TIMES ON THE 15TH, ASKED HIM TO COME IN.
UM, A RULING BY THE BOARD THAT YOU CAN EVADE DISCIPLINE BY JUST IGNORING EMAILS, UM, CAN, WILL CREATE CHAOS.
I MEAN, YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THE, THE NOTICE.
I UNDERSTAND THE LAW CHANGED AND, AND, AND IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO FIX THIS EXACT SCENARIO, BUT IF YOU CAN AVOID SERVICE, THEN THE DISCIPLINES NU AND VOID.
AND THAT, I MEAN, THAT CAN'T BE THE CASE.
UM, THE BOARD, I MEAN, THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO TRY TO GET, UH, THE SERGEANT TO COME IN TO ACCEPT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY NOTICE, ACTUALLY SENT IT TO HIM.
I THINK THE STATUTE WAS COMPLIED WITH.
ACTUAL NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO HIM, WHETHER, UM, HE DIDN'T READ IT ON UNTIL MAY 16TH OR NOT.
ACTUAL NOTICE WAS SENT ON THE 12TH.
[01:05:01]
SUFFICES TO, TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND TO THE LAW.WHAT WAS THE CHANGE TO THE LAW? OR DID THE JUST IT WAS ALLOW TO, THE LAW ALLOWED TO, UM, THE EMAIL, UTILIZE EMAIL.
CAN YOU STATE, IS IT FOR ME? I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT IN FRONT OF ME.
THERE WERE SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE LAW ACTUALLY.
HE SAID THERE WERE SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE LAW.
WHAT THERE WERE, THEY CHANGED THE, UM, 60 DAY DEADLINE TO 75.
BUT THE, THE PART THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, UM, WELL, ONCE AGAIN, THE PREVIOUS STATUTE DID NOT ALLOW THIS.
BUT THE NEW ONE SAYS THE NOTICE MAY BE GIVEN IN WRITING OR ELECTRONICALLY.
BEFORE IT WAS, UH, ORAL OR IN WRITING.
SO THE FACT THAT THEY CHANGED THE LAW TO STAY ELECTRONICALLY IS A CHANGE IN THE LAW MEANS THAT IT WASN'T ACCEPTED BEFORE, WOULD THAT IT WAS, UH, BE RIGHT? IT WOULD ACTUALLY, MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE, UM, IT WASN'T WRITTEN IN THE LAW.
BUT YOU CAN, BASED ON WHAT HAPPENS AFTER ELECTRONICALLY.
SO LET'S SAY THE PERSON ACTUALLY OPENED IT UP AND THEY GOT THE READ RECEIPT.
IT'D BE HARD FOR ME TO SAY HE DIDN'T GET IT.
SO THAT'S, I WOULD SAY, IN ALL FAIRNESS, THAT'S NOTICE.
THEY DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY INCLUDE ELECTRONICALLY IN THE STATUTE.
THAT'S A NEW, UH, A NEW ADDITION TO THE LAW IN 21.
THE OTHER PART THAT WAS ADDED IS, IS, UM, THE NOTICE SHALL BE CONSIDERED RECEIVED BY THE POLICE EMPLOYEE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION ON THE DATE RECEIVED, PROVIDED IT IS SENT TO THE HOME ADDRESS.
AND THE PERSONNEL FOLLOWED THE EMPLOYEE OR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ONCE AGAIN, THAT WASN'T IN LAW BEFORE.
AND LIKE I SAID, THEY ADDED THE, ALSO TO THE DEPARTMENTALLY ISSUED EMAIL ADDRESS THAT WASN'T IN THE LAW BEFORE.
AND LIKE I STATED, THE, THE SUPREME COURT, WHAT THEY'VE SAID ON CHANGES IN THE LAW, ON CHANGES OF THE WORDING OF STATUTES, WHEN THE WORDING OF A STATUTE IS CHANGED, CHANGES, UH, IS CHANGED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THEY INTENDED TO CHANGE THE LAW.
THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THAT THEY CHANGED THE, CHANGED THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.
THEY ADDED THINGS THAT WEREN'T IN THERE BEFORE.
SO THEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE CASE LAW SAYS.
WELL, THAT, SINCE THAT'S A CHANGE IN THE WORDING, IT'S GOTTA BE PRESUMED THAT THEY MEANT TO CHANGE THE LAW.
THEREFORE, THAT WASN'T THE LAW PREVIOUSLY.
AND IT'S NOT LIKE THE STATUTE WAS AROUND BEFORE EMAIL.
IT WAS LAST AMENDED PRIOR TO THIS IN OH SEVEN.
THERE WAS, I MEAN, THERE WAS DEPARTMENTALLY ISSUED EMAIL BACK THEN.
SO HAD THIS, HAD THEY INTENDED TO MAKE THIS PART OF THE LAW BACK IN OH SEVEN, EMAIL WASN'T A FOREIGN CONCEPT AT THAT POINT.
THAT WAS, THAT HAD BEEN, WE'VE BEEN USING EMAILS AT, AT REGULARLY SINCE PROBABLY 98.
SO THIS, THIS WASN'T OFF THE RADAR.
AND I, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT IF THAT THAT WASN'T A CONSIDER A CONCERN BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY, WE HADN'T CAUGHT UP WITH WHERE TECHNOLOGY'S GOING YET.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE CASE AT THE TIME.
HOW, HOW DID THE LAW, HOW DID THE LAW READ IN 2007? IN 2007? LET ME SEE IF I HAVE A COPY.
WELL, PREVIOUS, PREVIOUS IT OUT.
OH, THEY, THEY SAYING THE SAME.
LET ME SEE IF I, UH, HAVE THAT IN THE FILE.
PART OF THE FILE THAT I BROUGHT.
BUT OUR, OUR PROBLEM IS THE CABIN MOUSE GAMES THAT SOMETIMES YOU CAN PLAY TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE NOTICE.
YOU WANT, UM, THE 15 DAYS PARTS FROM DOUG ROBS AND YOU WANT THE, THE PART JUST DEALING WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S JUST WHAT IT'S CAUSE IT'S A LONG STATUTE.
JUST WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT NOTICE.
CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE, THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY DID DISCUSSING HERE.
WHERE THE STATUTE, THE ONLY THING DEALING WITH NOTICE, THE INVESTIGATION
[01:10:01]
SHALL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UPON NOTICE TO THE POLICE EMPLOYEE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION OF A PRE-DISCIPLINARY, PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING OR A DETERMINATION OF AN UNFOUNDED OR UNSUSTAINED COMPLAINT.THE NEW STATUTE ADDS EVERYTHING ELSE I'D READ TO YOU.
SO IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT NOTICE IS.
THIS DESCRIBES DIFFERENT TYPES OF NOTICE.
IT JUST SAYS NO NOTICE DEPARTMENT GAVE NOTICE.
AND SO WHAT WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS PROPER NOTICE OR NOT.
THE LAW DID SAY JUST UPON NOTICE, THE NEW LAW ACTUALLY DEFINES WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NOTICED.
AND ONCE AGAIN, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT'S A TOTAL, THAT'S A COMPLETE ADDITION OR CHANGE OF LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.
THEY'VE ADDED NEW COMPONENTS TO THAT STATUTE.
THAT'S A CHANGE IN THE LAW, WHICH MEANS THAT WASN'T THE LAW BACK THEN.
AND I MEAN, LET'S FACE IT, THE DEPARTMENT, EVERY CASE THAT Y'ALL EVER HAD, WHAT, WHAT DO Y'ALL HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU? A LETTER WITH THE OFFICERS SIGNATURE AT THE END OF THE LETTER.
THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE THIS FOR DECADES.
AND THEN IT'S JUST IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS, I STARTED SEEING WHEN THERE WERE ISSUES AS FAR AS GETTING THE OFFICER, THERE'D BE A RETURN OR READ RECEIPT SUBMITTED SAYING, WELL, IT COULDN'T COME IN ON, HE READ IT AND ACTUALLY GOT IT ON THIS DATE.
SO WE'VE ALWAYS DEALT WITH ACTUAL NOTICE, NOT SOME TYPE OF, UM, PRESUMED ACTUAL NOTICE OR I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. KHAW.
BUT ACCORDING TO THE LAW SAYS NOTICE AND NOTICE WAS GIVEN.
IT DIDN'T SAY WHAT TYPE OF NOTICE WAS REQUIRED.
SO TO, TO ME THAT MEANS THAT THERE WAS NOTICE.
SO, SO LET ME GIVE YOU EXAMPLE ON THAT.
WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE RULE THEN? EXACTLY.
THAT'S NOT FOR US TO BE TALKING ABOUT.
WELL, I KNOW, BUT WHY DID THEY ADD IT IN THERE? WELL, I MEAN, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S NOT FOR US TO, TO, TO WORRY ABOUT.
WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAID AT THE TIME THAT THE ACCIDENT WAS TAKEN.
SO, SO IN THAT VEIN, LIKE I SAID, I CAN REITERATE WHAT THE LE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID WHEN THERE'S BEEN CHANGE OF LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, WHICH MEANS IT'S A CHANGE IN THE STATUTE.
HOWEVER, LET ME, I GAVE YOU THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU NEEDED A, A WORKER HAD TO GET YOU, UH, DELIVER SOMETHING TO YOU BY FRIDAY.
WELL, YOU HAPPENED TO BE OUT ON FRIDAY.
YOU DON'T COME BACK TO WORK UNTIL THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY.
DID YOU GET IT ON FRIDAY? NO, YOU DIDN'T.
SO WAS IT ACTUALLY NOTICED TO YOU, YOU'RE NOTIFIED OF SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO RESPOND TO THE NEXT DAY, BUT YOU DON'T GET IT UNTIL SEVERAL DAYS LATER.
DID YOU ACTUALLY GET THAT? I MEAN, THE ANSWER IS NO.
SO I MEAN, THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE READING OR EXTENDING WHAT NOTICE IS.
NOTICE TO ME, WITHOUT A DEFINITION OF IT MEANS YOU ACTUALLY GOT NOTICE.
NOW, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THE LAW ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN OTHER THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED, LIKE THE CHANGE IN THE STATUTE, YOU KNOW, GETTING, RECEIVING AN EMAIL AT YOUR DEPARTMENTALLY, DEPARTMENTALLY ISSUED EMAIL ADDRESS THAT IS, UM, BEEN WRITTEN IN LAW TO BE ACCEPTED AS NOTICED THERE IT, WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH SERVICE A PROCESS, THEY ALLOW NOTICE TO BE DROPPING SOMETHING OFF AT THE PERSON'S HOUSE CUZ IT'S WRITTEN IN THERE.
OTHERWISE IT NEEDS TO BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE PERSON WHO WAS INTENDED TO, UM, TO BE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT.
OTHERWISE, IN THIS, YOU'RE EXTENDING THE STATUTE IN A WAY.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EXTENDED.
MR. JIM LOOKS LIKE HE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
ONLY IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM.
THE ONLY CLARIFICATION I THINK I'LL MAKE IS, IS THERE'S PLENTY OF STATUTES THAT TALK ABOUT, ABOUT NOTICE, AND THEY USE THE WORD ACTUAL NOTICE WHEN ACTUAL NOTICE IS REQUIRED.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT MODIFIER HERE.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOTTA USE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT ON WHAT NOTICE ACTUALLY MEANS.
I THINK NOTICE IS CLEAR HERE AGAIN, AND I DISAGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT CASES THAT THE COUNCIL IS RAISING BECAUSE THOSE DEAL WITH A CHANGE IN THE LAW.
TH THAT PROVISION WAS NOT CHANGED.
IT WAS A, IT WAS ADDED TO, THERE WAS A PORTION THERE THAT WENT ON TO DEFINE NOTICE.
THAT'S A CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW.
THAT'S NOT A CHANGE OF THE LAW AND A CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW.
THIS IS NOT, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PRESUMED THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE LAW.
THEY WERE CLARIFYING WHAT THAT MEANT.
BUT, BUT EVEN IF THEY CHANGED THE LAW, IT WASN'T THE LAW AT THE TIME THE ACCIDENT WAS TAKEN.
SO CHANGING THE LAW HAS NO EFFECT
[01:15:01]
HERE.Y'ALL DONE WITH Y'ALL'S ARGUMENT? YES.
WHEN YOU REPRESENT, IS IT ALSO THE, AS THE ATTORNEY, DO YOU GET NOTIFICATION? I DIDN'T RECEIVE IT.
I DIDN'T RE NO, IT'S NOT ENDS UP HAPPENING.
AS THE OFFICER USUALLY GETS IT.
THE, WHAT THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE WITH ME.
I ONLY RECEIVE IT FROM MY CLIENT.
WHICH IS USUALLY, I RECEIVED SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THEY'VE ACTUALLY GOTTEN IT, BUT THEY'VE NEVER SENT IT TO ME.
AND IN THIS CASE, THEY DID NOT SEND IT TO ME.
SO, UM, WHEN I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET AHOLD OF 'EM, NOBODY EMAILED THIS TO ME.
I GUESS, UM, SERGEANT CAMELO GOT IT SOMETIME THAT WEEK OF THE 16TH, AND I THINK I PROBABLY GOT IT THE NEXT WEEK, BUT I DEFINITELY DIDN'T GET IT BEFORE.
YEAH, I'M ASKING CUZ WE'VE RUN INTO THIS SEVERAL TIMES AND YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS THE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WAS OFF OR THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T CHECKING THEIR MAIL OR THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEIR PHONE.
AND I'M JUST SAYING, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO FROM OUR LEVEL TO MAKE CHANGES TO WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE? WELL, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
WELL, I CAN TELL YOU HOLD THE LAW.
CAUSE THE STATUTE, IS THERE EVER ANY ATTEMPT TO NOTIFY HIM? I I YOU MENTIONED THAT STILL, IF HE'S SAYING I DIDN'T, THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO NOTIFY HIM BY PHONE, DOESN'T MATTER AND EMAIL.
BUT WAS THAT EVER ANY ATTENTION WORTH BY HIM FOR IT'S NOTIFIED REGULAR MAIL? I I STAYED THE, I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ENOUGH TIME.
IT WAS BY PHONE, EMAIL, AND TEXT.
PHONE, EMAIL AND TEXT MESSAGE.
SO THOSE, SO, SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THOUGH, IT, AND THIS IS WHAT, UM, MR. MR. SMITH BROUGHT UP BEFORE.
THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DO.
THEY CAN FILE FOR AN EXTENSION TO GET ACTUAL NOTICE TO THE PERSON.
THEY CAN ASK, THEY CAN ASK THE BOARD TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
SO DID I HEAR THAT HE WAS, HE WAS, HE, HE RECEIVED TEXT AND EMAIL AND PHONE CALLS.
HIS, HIS AFFIDAVIT SAID, WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY, THEY TRIED TO NOTIFY HIM, BUT WHICH UNDERSTANDING HE WAS OUT BEFORE THE LAW WAS EVEN CHANGED.
THOSE ARE THE MEANS EVEN BEFORE THE LAW WAS CHANGED, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.
THEY ATTEMPTED ADDITIONAL NOTICE BEFORE WE EVEN THAT THAT EVEN CAME INTO PLAY.
NO, THAT WAS NOT, THAT WAS, UM, BEFORE THE LAW WAS CHANGED, TEXT WAS, HAS NEVER BEEN IN PLAY.
UM, WELL, NO, NO, I'M SAYING ADDITIONAL MEANS VIA TECHNOLOGY.
AND THE WAY IT IT HAS BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY WAS IF IT WAS SENT ELECTRONICALLY, THE PERSON EITHER AND RE READ RECEIPT CAME BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT SAYING, YEP, HE OPENED IT UP ON SUCH AND SUCH A DAY.
YEAH, I RECEIVED IT ON THAT DAY.
AND NEITHER ONE OF THOSE EXISTS HERE.
WHAT MY POINT WAS, THE OTHER MEANS OF, OF, OF NOTICE THAT THEY ATTEMPTED MM-HMM.
THAT HE NEVER SAW THIS LETTER UNTIL HE TURNED BACK WORK MESSAGES.
CAUSE HE WAS, LIKE I SAID, HE WAS OUT OF TOWN OFF THE GRID.
WELL, BUT IF YOU, I MEAN, IN LAW YOU USE A REASONABLE MAN, REASONABLE MAN APPROACH.
IF YOU'RE ANYWHERE IN THE, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR PHONE WITH HIM.
SO HE'S TELLING US THAT HE NEVER SAW A TEXT MESSAGE CORRECT.
OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT HE WAS OFF.
YOU CHOOSE NOT, HE CHOSE NOT TO READ IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD HIS PHONE WITH HIM.
AND THE REASON BEING IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, A LOT OF THESE GUYS HAVE WORK PHONES AND PRIVATE PHONES.
WHEN YOU'RE OFF OF WORK, YOU'RE OFF WORK.
I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE OUR PRIVATE TIMES OUR TIME, NOT THE DEPARTMENT'S TIME, NOT ANY OTHER EMPLOYER'S TIME.
THERE'S NO POLICY THAT WOULD SAY YOU GOTTA, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR DEPARTMENTALLY ISSUED CELL PHONE SO THAT YOU CAN CATCH WORK PHONES WHILE YOU'RE OFF OF WORK, WORK CALLS WHILE YOU'RE OUT OFF OF WORK.
THE LAW AT THE TIME SAID THAT NOTICE WAS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEE.
NOTICE IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT TYPE WAS GIVEN.
THE SECOND THING IS, IF I AM AS AN INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED IN A SITUATION SUCH AS THAT WHERE MY LIVELIHOOD IS AFFECTED, I CERTAINLY
[01:20:01]
KNOW WHAT THE TIMELINE IS.I WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE IT A POINT TO TRY AND FIND OUT WHAT THE CHIEF AND HIS ADMINISTRATION WAS DOING IN TERMS OF MY DISCIPLINE.
THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT MEANS THAT EITHER HE CHOSE NOT TO CHECK THE EMAILS OR THE TEXTS OR WHATEVER IN THAT REGARD.
I JUST MOVED THAT WE WOULD DENY THE, UH, REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. LEWIS.
AND THAT, UH, I ASK THAT WE HAVE A ROLE CALL VOTE AND THE MOTION IS TO DISMISS.
THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DIS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FILE 0 1 3 DASH 21.
YOU NEED, YEAH, I'LL ADD THAT TO MY MOTION.
BE SPECIFIC CUZ THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT CASES THERE.
CORRECT? IS THAT THE RIGHT, UH, NUMBER? YES, SIR.
WAIT, FINISH THE MOTION AGAIN.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON IA FILE ZERO 13 DASH 21.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SECONDED BY, UH, MS. UH, STERN.
SO THE QUESTION IS, UH, DO YOU DENY, DENY, DENY? SO IT'D BE A NUMBER.
SO'S A NOTE FROM MS. UH, DOY? YEAH.
UM, WELL, I GUESS THE MOTION IS DENIED, RIGHT? MOVING ON TO THE NEXT, GOT TWO MORE I BELIEVE.
UH, IT'S JUST ONE MORE MOTION, BUT REGARDING INVOLVING THE THREE CASES.
MY NEXT, UH, MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, UM, CONCERNS NOTICE.
AND WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL NOTICE, UM, THAT WAS RECEIVED BY SERGEANT CAMELO AND WAS IT, UM, LEGALLY DEFICIENT? UM, IN THIS CASE, AS WE STATED, WENT THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THIS, THERE WERE SOME INITIAL LETTERS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO ALSO, ANOTHER ISSUE TO DECIDE WITH THIS.
UM, SERGEANT CAMELO WAS ISSUED THREE A LETTER FOR EACH ONE OF THESE CASES, UM, AFTER A HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE ON APRIL 29.
UM, SO HE RECEIVED A, UM, HE RECEIVED THOSE THREE LETTERS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.
AND THEN AFTER WE CAME HERE AND HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPROPER DISCIPLINE, THAT THEIR AGGREGATE MORE THAN, UH, MORE THAN 90 DAYS, WHAT Y'ALL ORDERED WAS, OR THE RULING WAS SEND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF FOR HIM TO RECONSIDER THE DISCIPLINE.
AND SO THEN THE AGGREGATE TURNED OUT TO BE 75 DAYS.
HOWEVER, WHAT HE ALSO DID WAS ADD IN A LOT MORE INFORMATION, UM, TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD IN A LOT MORE INFORMATION THAN WAS INCLUDED IN THAT ORIGINAL NOTICE LETTER.
UM, THAT WASN'T WHAT Y'ALL, THAT WASN'T YOUR RULING.
THE RULING WAS JUST RECONSIDER THE DISCIPLINE.
[01:25:01]
HE DID, AND, AND THE REASON, THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT, AND YOU DON'T RECALL, THERE WAS A, UM, THE CASE INVOLVING OFFICER SIAH CREOLE THAT HAD BEEN, WAS PENDING AT THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT THE TIME.AND IN BETWEEN US BEING HERE AND THE ISSUANCE OF, OR RIGHT BEFORE WE CAME HERE, THE, THE JUDGE OVER THE 19TH SAID, THIS LETTER IS LEGALLY DEFICIENT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FULLY APPRA THE OFFICER OF WHY YOU RENDERED THE DISCIPLINE ON HOW HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF POLICY.
SO ON THE HEELS OF THAT, THEN THEY SAID, WELL, THEY TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REMANDING TO RECONSIDER DISCIPLINE TO ACTUALLY RECONSIDER THE REASONS FOR THE DISCIPLINE, OR PUT A, A LOT MORE ADDITIONAL REASONS IN THERE TO FULLY BACK UP, UM, THE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION.
UM, FIRST I WOULD ARGUE THAT, YOU KNOW, HE DOESN'T HAVE THE, YOU GET, OTHER THAN I, I GET THE RECONSIDERING DISCIPLINE, BUT THE REASONS FOR DISCIPLINE WERE ALREADY SPELLED OUT IN THOSE ORIGINAL LETTERS, Y'ALL DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR, NOR COULD ILLEGALLY OPEN THE DOOR TO GO REWRITE THESE LETTERS AND, AND DO ALL THIS.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
UM, SO I, MY ARGUMENT, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S A DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT ON THOSE, UM, CONCERNING THE FIRST LETTERS, BUT THE SECOND LETTERS SHOULD BE JUST DISREGARDED.
UM, OTHER THAN THE TIMEFRAME OF THE DISCIPLINE, THE, THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OR GET ANOTHER CRACK AT IT TO TRY TO GET IT RIGHT.
HAD TO, OR TO ADD TO ANY INVESTIGATION TO, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WAS, THAT'S WHAT WAS DONE.
THEY ISSUE THE FIRST LETTER, OKAY, WE, WE FIND THAT WE SUSPEND YOU FOR X AMOUNT OF DAYS, AND THIS IS Y BUT THEN THEY, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, WELL, THOSE REASONS THAT WE PUT IN THERE WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
LET ME GO AHEAD AND ADD TO 'EM.
AND I KNOW ORIGINALLY WE WERE HERE AND MR. RAINS HAD MADE THE COMMENT, WELL, THERE'S ONLY A SENTENCE OR TWO ADDED.
UM, IN ONE, SHOULDN'T SHOULDN'T ANYTHING BE ADDED.
NOTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED OTHER THAN JUST CHANGING THE ACTUAL DISCIPLINARY DATE.
THAT WAS ALL Y'ALL TOLD HIM TO DO.
SO, UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THE LAW DOESN'T ALLOW HIM TO DO THAT EITHER.
SO THE, UM, THE SECOND LETTER, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CASE NUMBER OH 1 21, THERE WAS A HUGE PARAGRAPH, I GUESS SOME, SOME COMMENTS FROM THE JUDGE THAT WERE NEVER INCLUDED IN THAT, IN THAT FIRST LETTER.
AND THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS FROM THE JUDGE.
THE, THE SECOND ONE, THE O OH 12 DASH 21 GOT NO ARGUMENT.
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A COUPLE WORDS CHANGED.
THAT ONE'S PRETTY MUCH MATCHES UP WITH THE FIRST LETTER.
BUT THEN THE THIRD LETTER WITH THE OH ONE THREE DASH 21, THAT ADDED A WHOLE PAGE AND A HALF OF STUFF THAT WASN'T IN THE FIRST LETTER.
SO TO SAY THAT THEY WEREN'T REALLY CHANGED IS JUST NOT CORRECT.
AND IF YOU COMPARE THE LETTERS, I ATTACH, ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU'LL HAVE THE, THE MOTIONS.
I ATTACHED THE ORIGINAL LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED BEFORE YOU REMANDED IT BACK TO THE CHIEF.
I ATTACHED THAT LETTER AND I ATTACHED THE SECOND LETTER SO YOU CAN COMPARE 'EM.
SO THE SECOND LETTER SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED NOT FOR THIS MOTION AND NOT FOR, UM, THE HEARING THAT'S GONNA TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE.
THEY SHOULD BE RELEGATED, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE RELEGATED TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE LETTERS THAT THEY ORIGINALLY ISSUED, WHERE HE, THEY GAVE THE REASONS FOR THE DISCIPLINE.
UM, SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT, WHAT IS IT THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN DISCIPLINED? WELL, WE, YOU KNOW, WE DEAL WITH TITLE 33 2500, AND THAT SAYS, YOU MUST PROVIDE A LETTER TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THE BOARD WITH COMPLETE REASONS, COMPLETE REASONS FOR THE ACTION.
BUT THEN YOU READ THAT WHAT WE CALL IN LEGAL JARGON IN PERRY MATERIAL.
YOU READ 'EM TOGETHER WITH THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 10, SECTION EIGHT, WHICH PROHIBITS ANY CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE FROM BEING SUBJECTED TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION EXCEPT FOR CAUSE EXPRESSED IN WRITING.
OKAY? SO THEN WE LOOK, OKAY, WHAT'S THE, AND YOU'RE GONNA HEAR, UM, COUNSEL ARGUING A TEMPORAL ELEMENT.
UM, WHEN DOES A LETTER NEED TO BE ISSUED? WELL, IF A PERSON GETS FIRED TODAY, BUT A WEEK FROM NOW, THEY RECEIVED THE REASONS FOR THAT, CAN YOU NOT SAY THAT THE PERSON WAS TERMINATED FOR A FULL WEEK BEFORE, OR THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO DISCIPLINE FOR THAT FULL WEEK WITHOUT CAUSED EXPRESSED IN WRITING? OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE, AND I CITE THREE DIFFERENT CASES IN MY, UM, IN MY MEMO,
[01:30:01]
ONE OF WHICH IS A, IS A LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT CASE.AND, BUT THE THREE CASES ARE A NAREO, WHICH IS A 2005 FIRST CIRCUIT CASE, JONES, WHICH IS A 2010 THIRD CIRCUIT CASE, BUT ALSO BELL, WHICH IS A 1986 LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT CASE.
SO ALL OF THOSE SAY THAT PRIOR TO BEING SUBJECTED TO THE DISCIPLINE, THEY NEED TO HAVE GOTTEN THIS LETTER LETTING 'EM KNOW WHY THEY'RE BEING, WHAT THE DISCIPLINE IS, WHY THEY'RE BEING SUBJECTED TO IT.
THAT'S ONLY FAIR FOR YOU TO KNOW WHAT THE REASONS ARE OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL? YOU JUST WALK IN, OKAY, YOU'RE TERMINATED AND YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT THE REASONS ARE.
AND THEN A WEEK LATER, YOU'RE TOLD WHY YOU WERE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S A WHOLE PREMISE FOR THIS.
SO NOW WE LOOK TO WHAT SERGEANT CAMPBELL, AND THIS IS IN THE, THE DISCIPLINARY LETTERS.
SO NOT, NOT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY, WHICH IS YOU'VE GOT A HEARING, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
THESE ARE AFTER HE'S BEEN DISCIPLINED OR, OR HE'S ABOUT TO BE DISCIPLINED.
AND THE, THE DEPARTMENT SAYING, OKAY, THESE ARE THE REASONS THAT WERE TAKING THIS DISCIPLINARY ACTION, AS WELL AS THE REASONS, UH, AS WELL AS THE, UH, WHAT THE DISCIPLINE IS.
WELL, IN TWO OF THEM, AND THESE ARE, UM, IT'S THE OH ONE DASH 21, AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE OH 1 3 21.
THERE, THERE'S NOTHING, THERE'S NO INFORMATION IN THOSE LETTERS OTHER THAN IT'S A REGURGITATION OF WHAT SERGEANT CAMELO AND WITNESSES THAT WERE IN HIS FAVOR, UM, TESTIFIED TO AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT 'EM, THERE'S NOTHING, AND IN THE OPPOSITION, THEY HAVEN'T POINTED TO ANY FACTS THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIATE ANY OF THE VIOLATIONS ALLEGED IN THEIR DISCIPLINARY LETTERS BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
SO, LIKE I SAID, YOU LOOK AND SEE WHAT HE WAS PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF THE DISCIPLINE, AND IT GIVES ABSOLUTELY NO REASONS.
THERE, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN READ 'EM AND SAY, OKAY, NOW YOU'D HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND, AND KIND OF JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHY HE WAS DISCIPLINED, WHY HE RECEIVED THE DISCIPLINE HE DID.
BECAUSE A LETTER DOES NOT SAY IT, IT DOES NOT COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY, WELL, BECAUSE YOU DID A, B, AND C, THIS IS WHAT I'M DOING.
AND THAT'S WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE LAW FOR THEM TO DO.
UM, BUT THIS LACK OF NOTICE IS NOT ONLY STATUTORILY DEFICIENT FOR 33, 2500, BUT IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFICIENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 10, SECTION EIGHT OF LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION.
UM, ONLY THING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS CITED IS LOUDER MILL, WHICH IS A SUPREME UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE, WHICH KIND OF SETS FORTH THE, THE BEGINNINGS OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND HOW, UH, UH, AN EMPLOYEE CAN BE TERMINATED.
BUT THE THING IS THAT THE LOUISIANA LAW GOES FURTHER THAN LOUDERMILL, AND IT REQUIRES MORE OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO NOTIFY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE REASONS WHY AND, AND EVEN THE TIMELINE OF WHY THEY WERE, UM, DISCIPLINED.
SO BECAUSE THIS IS A DUE PROCESS, DUE PROCESS VIOLATION, THE UM, THIS, THIS ALSO RENDERS THIS AN ABSOLUTE NUTY.
SO WE ASK THAT YOU OVERTURN THIS AS WELL, MR. KHAW, ARE YOU ASKING THE BOARD TO RENDER IT IN ABSOLUTE MELODY BECAUSE HE DID NOT RECEIVE, UM, COMPLETE REASONS UNDER 2,500? IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? MM-HMM.
AT THE HEART OF IT, THIS IS A DUE PROCESS ISSUE.
I MEAN, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES REASONABLE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS GIVEN IN THIS CASE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT LOUDER MILL AND MR. HAW IS RIGHT LADDER, LADDER MILL KIND OF SET FORTH THE MOTION OR SET FORTH THE, THE, THE, THE GROUNDWORK FOR, UH, DUE PROCESS AND CIVIL SERVICE.
AND UNDER LATTER MILL EMPLOYEE WITH PERMANENT STATUS IS ENTITLED TO ORAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, AN EXPLANATION OF HIS EMPLOYER'S EVIDENCE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.
THAT WAS ALL GIVEN IN THIS CASE.
UM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THE, THE BOARD TAKES ANY SERIOUS ACTION HERE TO COMPLETELY NULLIFY THE DISCIPLINE, I THINK YOU, YOU WOULD NEED TO LOOK IN DETAIL AT THE LETTERS THAT WERE ISSUED HERE.
MR. KERSHAW JUST KIND OF WRITES OFF THAT IT WAS JUST A REGURGITATION OF WHAT WAS SAID AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
WELL, YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.
[01:35:01]
EXACTLY WHAT THE SERGEANT TESTIFIED TO IN PAINSTAKING DETAIL.UH, WHAT WENT ON DUR ON THE THREE OCCASIONS FOR WHICH HE WAS DISCIPLINED, THAT IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO GIVE, UH, TO GIVE TO HIM REGARDING THE ACTIONS THAT HE TOOK THAT WERE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE.
AFTER REGURGITATING THOSE FACTS IN PAINSTAKING DETAIL, IT GOES ON TO LIST THE SPECIFIC POLICY VIOLATIONS THAT WERE INCURRED AND THEN GOES ON TO DOLE OUT THE DISCIPLINE.
NOW, IT'S CORRECT THAT AFTER, UM, THIS BOARD REMANDED THE MATTERS TO, UM, TO THE CHIEF FOR RECONSIDERATION, THERE WERE NEW LETTERS ISSUED.
THEY WERE, UM, ADDED TO A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE MS. K HAD MADE THESE THESE COMMENTS BEFORE, BEFORE THE HEARING.
SO, UH, THE CHIEF TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY, WELL, LET'S, IF WE'RE GONNA CURE ISSUES, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CURE THE ISSUES.
BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREOLE.
I PERSONALLY ARGUED AND, AND LITIGATED THE CREOLE CASE.
THIS IS NOWHERE NEAR THE CREOLE CASE, BY THE WAY.
IT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POSTURE.
IN THAT CASE, THE DISTRICT COR THIS BOARD DETERMINED THAT MR. CREOLE WAS SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE FOR INSUBORDINATION, AMONG OTHER THINGS, INSUBORDINATION FOR NOT COOPERATING DURING THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING FOR ROLLING HIS EYES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT STUFF HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED, COULDN'T HAVE BEEN NOTICED.
IT WAS THAT STUFF HAPPENED AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, COULDN'T HAVE BEEN NOTICED BEFORE.
AND WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SAID IN THAT CASE WAS IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DUE, HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO DISCIPLINE HIM FOR INSUBORDINATION DURING THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING FOR ITEMS HE HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED FOR.
THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POSTURE THAN WE'RE AT IN THIS CASE.
MR. KERSHAW CAN'T POINT TO A SINGLE THING THAT MR. UH, THAT THE SERGEANT IS BEING DISCIPLINED FOR, THAT HE WAS NOT NOTICED.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN CREOLE.
UM, BUT, AND, AND THE LAST POINT REGARDING THE TIMING OF ALL THIS, I MEAN, CLEARLY THE CHIEF CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME RIGHT AFTER THIS BOARD DETERMINED THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE REVISION OF THE LETTERS.
HE COULDN'T GO BACK IN TIME AND GIVE THOSE REVISED LETTERS AT THE TIME OF, OF DISCIPLINE.
UM, IN RESPONSE TO THE THREE CASES, UH, THAT, THAT COUNSEL CITED, THE LORETTO CASE, THE WILLIAMS CASE, AND, AND THE SUPREME COURT CASE, UM, THERE'S MORE RECENT CASES ON THIS SUBJECT.
UH, THEY'RE BECK VERSUS CITY OF BAKER, 1 0 7, SOUTHERN THIRD SIX 17.
THAT'S A FIRST CIRCUIT CASE IN 2012 HAWKINS VERSUS CITY OF BOSER TWO 18, UH, SOUTHERN THIRD ONE 10.
THAT'S A THIRD CIRCUIT CASE IN 2017 THAT BOTH SAY THAT THE WRITTEN NOTICE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME AT THE EXACT TIME OF THE DISCIPLINE.
IT CAN COME AT SOMETIME AT A LATER DATE.
AND THE REASON MR. KERSHAW ALLUDED TO MY ARGUMENT IN THIS REGARD IS HE AND I HAVE LITIGATED THIS ISSUE IN FRONT OF THE 19TH JDC.
AND JUDGE FIELDS AGREED, UH, AND SAID THAT THE DISCIPLINE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, UH, THE WRITTEN NOTICE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE GIVEN AT THE EXACT TIME OF DISCIPLINE AS LONG AS DUE PROCESS, UH, IS BEING FULFILLED.
SO AGAIN, DUE PROCESS GOES BACK TO A, YOU KNOW, NOTICE AND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
THAT WAS CLEARLY GIVEN IN THIS CASE.
THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS VIOLATION.
AND, UM, AND I THINK THAT THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, KNOW, REALLY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THESE, THESE DISCIPLINARY LETTERS, EVEN THE ORIGINAL ONES.
UM, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS PAINSTAKING DETAIL IN THE FACTS OF WHAT GAVE RISE TO DISCIPLINE.
UH, SERGEANT KALO WAS ON CLEAR NOTICE OF, OF HIS ACTIONS THAT WERE GIVING RISE TO THE DISCIPLINE AND THE POLICY VIOLATIONS.
SO WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL, I DON'T WANNA SAY CHARGES, BUT ANY ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE THAT WAS ADDED TO THE TIME WE SENT IT BACK TO THE CHIEF TO MM-HMM.
RT AT THE TIME? THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL IT, JUST MORE EXPLANATION OF WHAT, SO HE WAS STILL, THE CHARGES WERE STILL THE SAME.
I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA SAY CHARGES THE DIS SO THE DISCIPLINE IS WHAT WE SENT BACK FOR HIM TO RECONSIDER.
IT WAS THE TI THE LENGTH OF THE DISCIPLINE THAT WAS SENT BACK TO FOR RECONSIDERATION.
AND NOTHING WAS ADDED TO OTHER THAN EXPLANATION.
AND I THINK MS. KERSHAW WILL AGREE WITH THIS CHARACTERIZATION.
THERE WAS A, A, A LITTLE BIT MORE CONNECTING OF THE DOTS, RIGHT? IT WAS THIS PARTICULAR ACTION THAT GAVE HER RISE TO THIS PARTICULAR VIOLATION.
UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION.
SO, SO THE ORIGINAL, UH, ON THE ORIGINAL CASE BEFORE WE SENT IT BACK, WAS THERE A, A LACK OF INFORMATION ON THERE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE RECONSIDERED, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT BEFORE MM-HMM.
BUT I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'D SAY TOO.
WELL, BUT, BUT JOHN, TO YOUR, TO YOUR QUESTION THOUGH, IF I RECALL, WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME DISCUSSING THIS MATTER AND LISTENING TO THE ATTORNEYS.
[01:40:01]
90 DAYS.I FELT LIKE THIS BOARD FELT LIKE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE DISCIPLINE TO BE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING BACK THROUGH THIS.
BECAUSE NOW IT'S 75 DAYS IN MY MIND, WE NEED TO JUST SIMPLY, UH, NOT APPROVED THE REQUEST OF COURSE FOR AUGUST SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
UH, AND I WOULD INTERJECT THAT NONE OF THESE FACTUAL ISSUES WERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AT THAT TIME.
THE ONLY THING THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE BOARD AT THAT TIME WAS THE DURATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF IT BEING MORE THAN 90 DAYS.
WE DIDN'T HAVE HEARING, WE SPENT ALL THAT TIME MS. KHAW TALKING JUST ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT Y'ALL WANTED TO PRESENT.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU COULD'VE DEALT WITH THE ACTUAL FACTUAL SCENARIOS BACKING UP ANY OF THIS DISCIPLINE.
BUT THAT WAS YOURS CHOICE, NOT OURS.
WELL, WE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE IT, WE COULDN'T, WELL, YOU COULDN'T VOTE TO UPHOLD THE, UH, THE CHIEF'S DECISION BASED ON THE TIME WAS O EXCEEDED IN 90 DAYS.
SO I DON'T THINK WE EVER HEARD THE CASES WE DO.
WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO HEAR IT INSTEAD OF JUST TOSSING IT OUT BECAUSE WE PUT TOO MUCH INFORMATION IN.
NO, NO, I'M JUST SAYING WE WILL, YOU GUYS ARE, IS THAT A ME, MICHAEL IS A MEANS TO, CAN WE, WE CAN ONLY ARGUE WHAT WAS IN THE LETTER.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THE DISCIPLINE LETTER.
IT'S GONNA GIVE US, IT SHOWED MORE CUZ BECAUSE THEY ADDED MORE TO THE DISCIPLINE LETTER.
YOU THINK IT'S AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE BECAUSE HE GAVE MORE INFORMATION.
I DON'T THINK HE COULD LEGALLY ADD ANYTHING TO IT IS WHAT? DID HE ADD SOMETHING TO IT IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OR? YES.
IN ONE OF THEM, HE ADDED A WHOLE PAGE AND A HALF AND ANOTHER ONE ADDED ANOTHER HALF A PAGE OF INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED.
AND THIS IS WHAT I'M SO CAN WE DISREGARD WHAT HE ADDED? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
DO IS DISREGARD AND WE CAN LETTER SO THAT THEY ARE MARRIED TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE FIRST LETTERS.
CAUSE YOUR ORDER, YOUR ORDER WAS TO JUST SEND IT BACK ONLY TO RECONSIDER THIS DISCIPLINARY, THE TIMELINE.
NOT TO ADD TO YOUR REASONS FOR RENDERING SAID DISCIPLINE.
SO WE, IF WE, UH, DISREGARDING, DISREGARDED THE ADDITION AND CHOOSE TO HEAR IT ON JUST THE FOUR CORNERS OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL, UH, LETTER WAS, THEN WE'D BE RIGHT BACK AT THE SAME POINT.
WOULDN'T WE? WE WOULD BE RIGHT BACK AT SAME POINT.
BUT WE CHANGED THE, EXCEPT THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE 75 DAYS ADDITIONAL LETTER.
WHICH WAS WHAT WE AGREED TO, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO YOU JUST WANT US TO BE ON, JUST TO HEAR WHAT WAS ORIGINAL.
I'M ASKING YOU TO DISREGARD THOSE SECOND LETTERS.
NORS A LAW ALLOW 'EM TO DO THAT.
UM, HOWEVER, IF YOU, IF YOU GO IN THEN, THEN IF YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE FIRST LETTERS.
THE ONLY THING IN THERE POINTING TO, UM, POLICY VIOLATIONS, LET'S TAKE THE FIRST ONE.
ALL IT SAYS IS, JUDGE JACKSON'S FOUND HIS TESTIMONY TO BE TROUBLING.
DON'T SAY HOW, DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAN IT WAS TROUBLING.
CAUSE THE JUDGE FINDS YOUR POLICY, FINDS YOUR, UH, TESTIMONY TROUBLING.
DOES NOT, THAT'S NOT A POLICY VIOLATION.
THERE'S NO POLICY WRITTEN THAT IF A, IF A JUDGE SAYS THAT YOU, UM, YOUR TESTIMONY'S TROUBLING, THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A POLICY VIOLATION.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY FACTS, SO TO SPEAK, THAT'S POINTED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
BUT WHAT WOULD STOP THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FROM JUST INTRODUCING WHAT THE, AT THE, AT THE APPEAL.
JUST INTRODUCING WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE.
SO I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF ARGUING ABOUT IT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY COULD JUST INTRODUCE THE HEARING THAT THIS IS WHAT THE JUDGE SAID.
AND I THINK YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY WENT AHEAD AND PUT IT IN THE LETTER.
ANYWAY, THAT WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
I MEAN THERE WAS, UM, NO, THERE WAS A LOT MORE
SO FIRST THING IS TO RULE THAT THOSE SEC THE FACTUAL SCENARIOS IN THE SECOND LETTERS
[01:45:01]
ARE IN AMI, AREN'T TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD.WELL THE FACT THAT HE EDITED IT BROKE THE, BROKE THE BILL, THE POLICEMAN'S BILL OF RIGHTS, RIGHT? NO, IT DIDN'T.
NO, BECAUSE WHEN HE GAVE NOTICE, THE NEW NOTICE OF THE 75 80, THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS ENDED WITH THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING LETTER.
SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT PART IS KIND OF, YOU'RE NOT ARGUING THAT.
NO, IT'S NOT, IT'S LIKE IT'S A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION, MEANING, HEY, HE DIDN'T GET SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF WHAT HE, WHAT WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE IN ORDER TO BE IN VIOLATION OF WHAT YOUR, OF THESE POLICIES THAT YOU'RE SAYING.
DID THE ALLEGATIONS CHANGE? THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE BOARD NEEDS TO KNOW.
DID THE ALLEGATIONS FROM THE FIRST LETTERS TO THE SECOND LETTER CHANGE? WELL, FIRST LETTER, LET'S SAY TAKE FIRST CASE, LIKE I SAID, ALL IT SAID WAS, JUDGE FOUND YOUR TESTIMONY TROUBLING.
WILL THEY GO INTO A LOT MORE DETAIL OTHER THAN JUST WHAT THE JUDGE SAID THEY GO INTO OTHER THINGS IN THE SECOND LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED.
SECOND CASE I GOT NO ARGUMENT WITH, CUZ IT'S ALMOST VERBATIM FACT BETTER.
BUT THEN THE THIRD ONE, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE FACT IN THERE OTHER THAN JUDGE BRADY GRANT AND A MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
AND THEN SO THEY ADDED A PAGE AND A HALF OF, THEY LISTED OUT 30 SOME ODD REASONS THAT WERE NOT IN THE FIRST LETTER.
SO THE SECOND LETTER, NOT A PROBLEM.
THE FIRST LETTER, YOU'RE UPSET THAT THERE'S AN EXP EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE JUDGE SAID AND THAT YOU ALLUDED TO SOMETHING ELSE, BUT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US, YOU ALLUDED THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY ADDED IN THAT LETTER.
IT WAS A PAGE AND A HALF OF, UM, JUST WHAT THE JUDGE SAID.
LIKE SOME TESTIMONY? NO, NOT NOTHING WHAT THE JUDGE SAID.
THEY SAID IT WAS A PAGE AND A HALF, I GUESS 31 THINGS.
UM, YEAH, 31 ITEMS THAT'S ON THE THIRD.
USING IN, ON THE THIRD CASE, UHHUH, THE SECOND LETTER I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE THE FIRST CASE.
IN THE FIRST LETTER, ALL IT SAYS IS JUDGE JACKSON FOUND YOUR MM-HMM.
AND THEN THEY AMENDED IT TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE JUDGE SAID.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENT TO THAT CASE? OTHER THAN SAYING WHAT THE JUDGE SAID? NO, SIR.
THEN WHY I, BECAUSE TO ME IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN SAYING, HEY, WE SUSPENDED YOU CUZ YOU CU SOMEBODY OUT.
THEY GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDO THE LETTER AND THEY EXPLAINED YOU ACTUALLY SAID F YOU OR WHATEVER.
I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S A, A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
LIKE, COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE, THE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.
NOW IT SEEMS LIKE YOU MAY BE GOING THERE ON THE THIRD LETTER THAT THERE'S 31 NEW REASONS, BUT ON THE FIRST AND THE SECOND ONE, I HAVEN'T HEARD A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.
NOW ON THE THIRD ONE THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT NOW.
AND THE, AND THE, AND THE FIRST ONE IT'S, UM, THEY ACTUALLY CITED A, A, I GUESS A QUOTE FROM THE JUDGE, UM, CONCERNING THE SEARCH BRADY, WHICH IS WHAT THIS STEMS FROM.
THE THIRD ONE IS ABOUT THE BRADY.
UH, THAT'S JUDGE BRADY, UH, JUDGE BRADY.
THE SUPPRESSION OF SOME EVIDENCE OR SOMETHING.
MR. PRESS'S QUESTION WAS HOW DID THE JUDGE GET INVOLVED ON THE PREVIOUS SCENARIO? UH, LEVEL HE DIDN'T.
WELL, BUT YOU, YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST LETTER, THE SECOND LETTER, THE THIRD LETTER AND SO ON, AND THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.
AND YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE JUDGE WELL, THE REACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT TO THE JUDGE.
BUT AT THE TIME THAT THE DISCIPLINE WAS ISSUED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN IN THE QUESTION.
WELL THAT, I MEAN, THE DEPARTMENT TOOK WHAT HE, THEY TOOK A FOOTNOTE FROM AN ORDER HE GRANTED AND THEY PUT THAT IN THE SECOND LETTER.
THAT WAS NOT IN THE FIRST LETTER.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND IN THE SECOND LETTER MAYBE, WELL IN THE FIRST LETTER, IT SEEMS TO ME IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE CHIEF TO ISSUE DISCIPLINE, THOSE REASONS STILL STAND TODAY.
THE ONLY REASON MENTIONED WAS JUDGE JACKSON FOUND YOUR TESTIMONY TROUBLING.
BUT THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
HOW DID JUDGE JACKSON GET INVOLVED AT THAT POINT? THE DIS THE DISCIPLINE HADN'T BEEN ISSUED YET.
YEAH, I THINK HE WAS, MAY I CLARIFY FOR YOU? YEAH.
JUDGE JACKSON WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE DISCIPLINE AT ALL.
JUDGE JACKSON WAS INVOLVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL CASE THAT AROSE OUT OF THE ACTIONS THAT THE OFFICER TOOK.
AND THAT CRIMINAL CASE WAS HEARD PRIOR TO DISCIPLINE BEING ISSUED.
[01:50:01]
THAT'S CORRECT.SO HE MADE THOSE COMMENTS IN THE COURSE OF THE CRIMINAL CASE BY THE UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL COURT THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCIPLINE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS, THAT'S WHY IS THIS DISPOSED ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE TROUBLING TESTIMONY.
SO TROUBLING TESTIMONY OF WHO OU OR CAMELO AND TROUBLING, TROUBLING CONDUCT CONDUCT OF CAME HE, HE, WITH RESPECT TO A SEARCH AND HE FOUND THAT THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN WERE QUOTE, TROUBLING.
WITH RESPECT TO, TO YOUR SEARCH, BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD, UH, IS THAT, WELL, LET ME START WITH THIS, WHICH YOU GUYS ASKED THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO DO WAS TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE DISCIPLINE TO RECONSIDER THE DISCIPLINE.
UM, YOU GUYS DID NOT ASK THEM TO ELABORATE ON THE REASONINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO HOW I WOULD PROBABLY HANDLE THAT IS, UH, THE APPEALS WILL BE BASED ON THE FIRST SET OF LETTERS AND AS IT RELATES TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT AT THE HEARING.
BUT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FIRST LETTER.
YOU HAVE A MOTION THAT THUMB SET UP I WON'T RESTATE BY.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND IT A SECOND.
SO WHAT WAS THE, UH, ACTUAL RULING? THE MOTION IS THAT WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE, UH, THE INFORMATION IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND IF WE HAVE TO, UH, ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE, WE'LL MAKE THAT DECISION AT THE TIME OF THE, THE HEARING.
I GUESS AS IT RELATES TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, THOUGH, IT IT'S DENIED BY, YEAH.
SO I GUESS WE NEED TO, UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A HEARING DATE ON THIS SET.
YEAH, WE, NO, UH, ARE YOU GONNA BE HANDLING THE HEARING? I, I LOOKS LIKELY NOT.
WELL, I GUESS WILL YOU BE AVAILABLE ON THE 21ST? I, I'M, IT LOOKS LIKE I'M GONNA BE OUTTA TOWN THAT WEEK.
NOT TO, NOT TO HAVE THE APPEAL.
JUST TO SCHEDULE OR WHAT I'LL DO, I'LL GET DATES FROM YOU.
I, I'LL EMAIL YOU AND GET SOME DATES FROM YOU FOR THE NEXT FEW AND I CAN SPEAK WITH MR. RAINES AND, UH, WE, WE'LL, WE'LL COLLABORATE AND FIGURE SOMETHING OUT AND UM, I CAN EMAIL THAT TO YOU.
THANK Y YOU GUYS, ONE THING I DID, I DON'T WANT HEAR NO APPEAL ON THE 21ST FOR SURE.
ONE THING I DID WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS, UH, WHETHER WE WOULD CHOOSE TO HAVE A MEETING IN DECEMBER OR NOT.
I DON'T THINK Y'ALL DID THE PAST TWO YEARS.
WELL, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M NOT GONNA BE HERE.
THAT, UM, WE HADN'T TOLD YOU THE DATE YET.
IT DON'T, I'M NOT, IT DON'T MATTER.
[11. Discussion related to upcoming disciplinary appeals.]
I DON'T, I DON'T, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT? NO.SO IT'S JUST OUR UNDERSTANDING WE'RE ON NUMBER 11.
SO NUMBER, I WOULD HAVE TO TABLE THAT SINCE IT RAINS IT'S NOT HERE.
SO, UM, IS THAT FINE WITH YOU MR. HAW? WE'RE GONNA TABLE NUMBER 11 AS DISCUSSION RELATED TO UPCOMING, UH, DISCIPLINARY.
THAT'S WHAT WE JUST YEAH, YOU NEED A MOTION TO TABLE IT? WELL, I HAVE ONE.
OH YEAH, WE DO NEED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THAT MR. HORTON YES.
THAT'S WHY I, THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THIS WAS PERTAINING TO DISCUSSION.
NO, I'M, I'M GLAD MR. SMITH SAID THAT WE'RE DONE WITH Y'ALL.
I, YOU, UM, WE DID RECEIVE ANOTHER PETITION FOR APPEAL ON WADE HILL.
I FILED IT ON BEHALF OF MR. HILL.
BUT DUE TO POTENTIAL CONFLICT, MR. IVY'S GONNA BE HANDLING THAT MATTER.
SO IS MR. IVY HANDLING MATTINGLY AND MR. IVY WAS ALREADY HANDLING HILL.
I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING CONFUSED CUZ HE AND I WERE COLLABORATING ON BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME TIME.
HE FILED THE APPEAL ON, ON HILL AND HE'S HANDLING THAT.
SO, UH, WE WILL HAVE TO SET THOSE, IT'LL BE NEXT YEAR ANYWAY, SO I'LL GET DATES FOR, UH, ALL THAT FROM ALL THE ATTORNEYS.
SO THIS IS A LETTER FROM, UH, BENZEL HING HOR.
HE FILED A LETTER TO APPEAL HIS DEMOTION.
[01:55:05]
OCTOBER 10TH, HE SENT A LETTER TO THE FIRE CHIEF, UH, INDICATING HE WISHES TO DISMISS HIS APPEAL, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS SET FOR THE OCTOBER MEETING BEFORE THE FIRE POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.SO HE HAS WITHDREW HIS APPEAL.
WHICH BRINGS THIS TO ITEM NUMBER 12.
DO ADJOURN, RIGHT? THAT HE WITHDREW? YEAH, WE HAVE IT.
SO, WHICH BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER 12.
YOU WITH ME? SO IS THAT A MOTION? I'LL MO I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
WE ADJOURN, RIGHT? SO MOVING TIME, 1 27.