[00:00:01]
UM, TODAY IS AUGUST 28TH, TWO TH 2023.
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING TO ORDER.
BEFORE, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME OUR NEW MEMBERS, MR. MICHAEL LEMON AND JOHN THOMAS.
YOU GUYS WELCOME TO THE BOARD.
UH, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, MISS MONICA, WOULD
[1. Roll Call]
YOU PLEASE GIVE US A ROLL CALL? YES, SIR.THAT BEFORE WE START, MR. JOHN W THOMAS MICHAEL LEMON.
CHRIS ROBINSON PRESENT
AND JUST EVERYBODY REMEMBER TO SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONES? YES, WE HAVE SOMEONE'S PARTICIPATING THROUGH THE LIVE SCREEN.
AT THIS, AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
[2. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda]
TWO.THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
UM, AS OF NOW, WE HAVE ONE CHANGE AND IT'S IN LINE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
UH, CONSIDER A MOTION TO CALL FOR EXAMINATIONS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICERS.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD HAZARDOUS MATERIAL OFFICERS.
SO IF I COULD GET A MOTION BEFORE WE DO THAT.
I THINK THE UNDERSTANDING IS WE DON'T NEED TO CALL FOR THE MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICER.
UM, THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE POSTED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO CALL FOR THE MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICER.
IS THAT OKAY? SO WE'LL STRIKE THROUGH THAT AND JUST POST IT.
OKAY? UM, YOU'LL NEED A MOTION.
WE STRIKE MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICER AND ADD PASSES THIS TRAINING.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. LOON.
UH, SO NOW IT WILL REFLECT THAT WE WILL ADD THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL OFFICER OR CALL FOR AN EXAMINATION AND POST THE MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICER.
OKAY? IF THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGES, NOW WE NEED THE, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
CAN WE GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER TWO AND CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED, UH, AGENDA.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE IS
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from August 3,2023, meeting]
CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 3RD, 2023 MEETING YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET.GUYS, I WILL MOVE THAT WE, UH, APPROVE THE AMENDED SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIRED CHANGES.
[4. Consider Motion to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS. UM, WE PASS SOME OF THESE AROUND.HAVE YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THESE AND, WHOA.
I'M GONNA PASS THESE TO MR. THOMAS.
THESE ARE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I NEED MISS MONICA STEELE TODAY.
AGAIN, THESE COULD GO TO MR. TURNER.
THESE COULD GO TO MR. THOMAS AS WELL.
SEE WHICH YOU THING IS IN ORDER.
THE FIRST AID KIT NAME WANTS YOU TO CATCH HIS STUFF.
HE, MAN, THIS THING IS STRONG.
[00:05:07]
I, IS THIS A JOKE, LIKE AN ENVELOPE INSIDE THE ENVELOPE INSIDE? MM-HMM.IT HAS TO BE REAL TOXIC PEOPLE.
IS WHAT YOU'RE YES, WE DO HAVE THEM.
AND GENTLEMEN, WHENEVER YOU GUYS ARE DONE, IF THEY MEET YOUR APPROVAL, WE, WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS. RECEIVE THIS.
DOES SHE NEED TO READ THESE INTO RECORDS? OKAY.
THIS IS RECENTLY AND I THINK, UM, YOU'RE GOOD.
MR. LIM? UH, I THINK THERE'S A PORTION.
JOHN, ISN'T THERE A PORTION THAT HE SIGNS ON HERE? YES.
WE'LL LOOK AT YOU BEING ALL NICE.
SO IS THERE A MO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, CALL FOR A MOTION? YES.
UM, BEING THAT WE'VE LOOKED OVER THESE, UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? OKAY.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
[5. Consider Motion to Approve Applications; Chief of Police, Criminal Intelligence Analyst, Criminal Information Specialist I, Police Cadet, and Fingerprint Technician I.]
CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR CHIEF OF POLICE, CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE, UH, ANALYSIS ANALYST.CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST ONE.
POLICE CADET AND FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN ONE.
WELL, THESE ARE APPLICATIONS IF YOU WANT.
[00:10:01]
FOUR.THIS ONE? YEAH, THOSE ARE FOUR.
CAN YOU DON'T FORGET TO TURN YOUR MIC OFF.
SO AFTER REVIEW, DO WE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATIONS? OKAY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. THOMAS.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND FOR MR. LEMON.
[6. Consider Motion to Transfer or Reject Examination Results.]
HAVE CONSIDER A MOTION TO TRANSFER OR REJECT EXAMINATION RESULTS.SO WE HAVE SOME EXAM RESULTS AS WELL.
[00:15:23]
ALL RIGHT.YOU FINE WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT.
SO BASED UPON, UM, DO WE HAVE A, A MOTION? ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A SECOND.
UM, WE HAVE A SIDE ITEM FOR, UH, ASHLEY LEBLANC.
POLICE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS.
THE OFFICE OF THE STATE EXAMINERS NOW ADMINISTER THOSE EXAMS AND WHEN THEY GET THERE BEFORE I USE YOUR MICROPHONE.
UH, THE OFFICE OF THE STATE EXAMINERS ACTUALLY TAKES CARE OF ALL ENTRY LEVEL POLICE, FIRE, AND COMMUNICATION OFFICERS.
UH, MS. LEBLA TESTED, GOT RECEIVED THE PASSING SCORE.
AND SO THE PROCEDURE IS NOW THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT A SCORE AND MAKE HER APPLICATION KNOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT.
SO JUST FOR CLARITY, WAS SHE IN THAT BATCH OF NO, SIR.
HER APPLICATION CAME, HER TEST SCORES CAME FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE EXAMINERS.
SO WE NEED A SEPARATE MOTION THEN? YES.
SO AT THIS TIME, WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE ASHLEY'S, ASHLEY'S APPLICATION POLICE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER ONE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD YOU, YOU NEED YOUR MIC ON? THERE YOU GO.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
[7. Consider Motion to Call for Examinations in Police Department]
NUMBER SEVEN IS CONSIDER A MOTION TO CALL FOR EXAMINATIONS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.I HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM, UH, UM, FROM THE CHIEF ASKING THAT WE CALL FOR A, THE EXAMINATION FOR CRIMINAL INFORMATION INFORMATION SPECIALIST ONE AND CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST TWO.
WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? WE NEED A MOTION.
[8. Consider Motion to Call for Examinations in Fire Department - Medical Training Officer]
WE HAVE A MOTION TO CALL FOR EXAMINATIONS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, FOR THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL OFFICER AND TO ALSO POST THE MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICERS.ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY MR. THOMAS.
[9. Hear and Consider Arguments related to John Dauthier's Notice of Appeal. ( Part 1 of 2 )]
NUMBER NINE IS TO HEAR AND CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS RELATED TO JOHN DOER'S NOTICE OF APPEAL REGARDING ITEM NUMBER NINE.I WILL VOLUNTARILY RECUSE MYSELF DUE TO THE PENDING LITIGATION AND TURN THE MEETING OVER TO THE VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THIS ITEM THIS TIME.
GENTLEMEN, I GUESS WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
AND JUST FOR THE, UH, THE BOARD'S SAKE, WHAT WE'RE DOING, THIS IS A MOTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD, UH, CAN HEAR AN APPEAL.
UM, SO IT'S NOT TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIONS HAPPEN.
THIS IS JUST WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN EVEN ACCEPT IT, JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.
UM, SO I'LL START WITH, I GUESS MR. IVY WOULD GO AHEAD AND PRESENT FIRST, AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE.
WELL, UH, MR. DARE, SO LONG AS I ALSO GET TO GO LAST
FOR ME, I, I THINK ACROSS THE STREET, IF IT WAS A NO, CAUSE I, I WOULD NOT BE GOING FIRST.
BUT I THINK PROCEDURALLY LARGELY THE FACTS ARE AREN'T VERY MUCH IN DISPUTE.
UH, THIS, AN IA INVESTIGATION BEGAN SOMETIME SHORTLY BEFORE JUNE T OF LAST YEAR.
UM, 'CAUSE ON THAT DATE, UH, MY CLIENT, MR. DO SERGEANT DOER, WAS PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE, UH, EXCUSE ME, THREE DAYS LATER.
[00:20:02]
UH, ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.UH, THERE WAS A NEWS CONFERENCE BY THE, UH, ADMINISTRATION OF BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH, UH, FAIRLY DETAILED SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM.
UM, IT ALSO, UH, UH, DISCUSSED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT YET COMPLETE.
UH, SOMETIME SHORTLY AFTER THAT, UH, INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE WAS DRAFTED, UH, DIRECTED TO SERGEANT DOER, WHO WAS AT THAT TIME NO LONGER EMPLOYED.
UH, BUT IT SUGGESTS NO METHOD OF DELIVERY AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF SERVICE.
AND THAT LETTER, IT, UH, REFLECTED THREE, UH, POLICY VIOLATIONS CONDUCT BECOMING AN, AN UNAUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY.
UM, IT ALSO, UH, INVITED MR. DOER TO PARTICIPATE IN SOMETHING THE DEPARTMENT CHARACTERIZED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW LATER THAT MONTH, UH, IN APRIL OF 2023.
UH, THE, UH, WELL, LEMME GO BACK BECAUSE IT SO STATE CHRONOLOGICAL SOMETIME, UH, RIGHT AFTER, UM, THAT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, A DOCUMENT WAS GENERATED, UH, CALLED AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, DISPOSITION FORM, UH, IN WHICH, UH, THERE WAS NOTATION MADE THAT THERE WAS CONSENSUS AMONG THE DEPUTY CHIEFS THAT, UH, POLICIES WERE VIOLATED.
THAT IT WAS, ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT, UH, A SYSTEMIC ISSUE, IT WAS AN INDIVIDUAL ACT OF MALICE.
UM, THAT IA FILE NUMBER IS REFLECTED ON MR. DOER'S, UH, IA OFFICER HISTORY.
UH, THE DISPOSITION INDICATES IN AN ADMIN REVIEW, UH, SO, UH, IN APRIL, EARLY APRIL OF 23, UH, MR. DOER RECEIVED, UH, UH, RECORDS, UH, OF THAT IA FILE, WHICH WERE RESPONSIVE TO A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST.
HE MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT, HE APPEALED TO THIS BOARD.
UH, THE CASES CITED BY, UH, WELL, FIRST OFF THE, THE ELEMENTS AS FAR AS AN SOMEONE'S RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THIS BOARD, UH, WAS MR. DOER AN EMPLOYEE, UH, PERMANENT EMPLOYEE OF CLASSIFIED SERVICE? CERTAINLY AT THE TIME THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN, HE WAS, HE HAD, OBVIOUSLY, HE HAD BEEN PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
UM, HE FINDS HIMSELF IN NO OTHER IN A SIMILAR SITUATION THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHO POSSIBLY HAD BEEN FIRED AND THEN SEEKS TO APPEAL.
UM, SECOND, WAS THERE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN.
UH, AND THE CASE LAW SAYS CORRECTIVE ACTION, UH, CAN BE SOMETHING LESS THAN A MERE PECUNIARY PENALTY.
IT CAN BE A PERMANENT BLACK MARK ON AN EMPLOYEE'S RECORD INDICATED IN ALL THE CASES THAT I CITED IN A MEMO SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD, TWO WERE LETTERS OF REPRIMAND.
UH, THE OTHER I BELIEVE, WAS MERELY A SUSTAINED COMPLAINT.
AND EITHER THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FORGOT TO, OR CHOSE NOT TO IMPOSE ANY PENALTY WHATSOEVER.
THE SUSTAINED COMPLAINT ITSELF, GIVEN ITS PERMANENCY IN THE EMPLOYEE'S RECORD, WAS WHAT WAS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW AN EMPLOYEE TO APPEAL.
UH, IN SHORT, WHAT THE DEPARTMENT SEEKS IS TO BE ABLE TO TREAT SOMEONE WHO HAS LEFT THE SERVICE AS FAR AS DINGING THEIR RECORD AS IF THEY ARE STILL EMPLOYED, BUT YET AFFORD THEM NO RIGHTS AN EMPLOYEE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE.
COULD YOU IMAGINE AFTER YOU HAVE SEPARATED YOURSELF FROM THE SERVICE, THE DE UH, YOUR EMPLOYER DINGS YOUR RECORD AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO APPEAL.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE.
NOW, WHAT YOU MAY HEAR IS THE DEPARTMENT HAS AN INTEREST IN FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED.
AND WE DON'T, WE DON'T DOUBT THAT AT ALL.
UH, SH WHETHER OR NOT THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES IS COMPLETELY UP TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IS TO DINGING THE EMPLOYEE'S RECORD WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM RIGHTS TO APPEAL OR TO AT LEAST BE HEARD.
AND IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS DONE THAT.
I'VE PROVIDED MR. RAINS, UH, A COPY OF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO OFFER AND INTRODUCE AS AN EXHIBIT, BUT A NAME MANY ON THIS BOARD KNOW.
WELL, IN THE INSTANCE OF CY CREEL, AN INVESTIGATION CONTINUED AFTER HE WAS TERMINATED, UH, BY THE DEPARTMENT.
AND THE DEPARTMENT IN THAT INVESTIGATION SENT HIM BY CERTIFIED MAIL, UH, BOTH AN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION ALONG WITH AN INVITATION TO COME TO, UH, THE ADMIN REVIEW HEARING.
[00:25:01]
IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD SHOWS NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.AND MR. DEREK, BEFORE I FORGET, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MARK THIS? UH, YOU CAN DO IT AS JUST DOSIER ONE OR DOSIER A HOW ABOUT, UH, I'M SORRY, SIR.
YOU CAN JUST DO LIKE DOSIER ONE OR DOER'S A, THAT'S FINE.
WHAT MR. DOER DOES NOT SEEK TO APPEAL IS A DESIGNATION THAT HE RETIRED OR RETIRED UNDER INVESTIGATION.
THAT IS WHAT THOSE CASES, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS SOUGHT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SEEKS TO DO HERE.
WHAT HE SEEKS TO APPEAL IS A REFERENCE TO AN IA FILE NUMBER IN WHICH HE, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS CLAIMED POLICIES WERE VIOLATED, AND THAT THIS WAS AN ACT OF MALICE.
THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, AND AS SUCH, I WOULD URGE YOU TO FIND MR. DOER HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL.
GOOD MORNING, JIM RAINS ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT AND CHIEF.
UH, WELCOME TO OUR NEW MEMBERS.
UM, LEMME GO BACK A LITTLE BIT TO THE FACTS AS THEY LEAD IN, I THINK IT HELPS UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION A LITTLE BIT.
THIS IA INVESTIGATION, UH, WAS OPENED BACK ON JUNE 20 OF LAST YEAR.
UH, AND THAT WAS, WAS AFTER A LOCAL YOUTUBE BLOGGER POSTED INFORMATION REGARDING THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND HISTORY OF OUR BOARD'S CHAIRMAN, MR. WILLIAMS. THE CONCERN ABOUT THE INFORMATION WAS THAT IT CONT, IT DISCUSSED AN ARREST AND 10 OTHER CONTACTS WITH POLICE IN RECENT YEARS.
THE KIND OF INFORMATION WITHIN THE BLOG INDICATED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS RELEASED TO THIS BLOGGER BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT.
SO AN AUDIT WAS DONE OF THE A D S I REPORTING SYSTEM THAT WAS, THAT'S USED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND IT WAS CONDUCTED, DETERMINED THE SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION.
AND THE AUDIT REVEALED THAT MR. DOSIER USED HIS DEPARTMENT ISSUED COMPUTER TO CONDUCT A SEARCH ON A D S I FOR INFORMATION REGARDING MR. WILLIAMS. JUST DAYS BEFORE THE BLOGGER'S POSTS, MR. DOSIER, BECAUSE OF THIS, WAS PUT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE, PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
ON JUNE 23 DAYS LATER, HE SUBMITTED HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS IN THE RECORD, DUE TO HIS ABRUPT RETIREMENT.
HE DIDN'T PARTICIPATE, HE WOULDN'T PARTICIPANT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, BUT HE DID ASK CAPTAIN JEFF SMITH, AND THIS IS PART OF THE IA INVESTIGATION, TO DELIVER A MESSAGE TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS THAT HE PURCHASED THE RECORD OF THE CLERK OF COURT OFFICE NEXT TO HEADQUARTERS ON MAY 31ST.
NOW, THE AUDIT REVEALED THAT HE LOOKED, USED HIS DEPARTMENTAL COMPUTER TO LOOK AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FILES RELATED TO MR. WILLIAMS. AND HE WAS NOT THE REPORTING OFFICER ON THOSE.
HE WASN'T IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE DIFFERENT REPORTS.
HE WAS JUST DOING RESEARCH, IF YOU WILL.
NOW, THIS IS CONCERNING BECAUSE THE CLERK OF COURT MAY HAVE INFORMATION REGARDING AN ARREST.
POTENTIALLY, YOU CAN FIND THAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA HAVE, UH, INFORMATION REGARDING THE CONTACTS OF A NORMAL CITIZEN.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA FIND THAT IN THE CLERICAL COURT'S OFFICE.
SO, AGAIN, MR. DOSIER RETIRED ON JUNE 23RD OF LAST YEAR.
NOW, BECAUSE OF HIS RETIREMENT, WE DID NOT DO WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
AND YOU GO THROUGH THE NORMAL STEPS AND PROCESSES.
THE CHIEF MAKES A RULING, AND THEN MAYBE IT GETS APPEALED AND COMES HERE.
THE DEPARTMENT'S TRYING TO CONTINUE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ALL HAPPENED IN THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
AND SO THEY DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AT THE, UH, AT THE END OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
NO POLICY VIOLATIONS WERE SUSTAINED.
NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST MR. DOER.
UH, THERE WAS A MEMO ISSUED TO THE DEPARTMENT, REMIND ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE PROPER USE OF DATABASES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
NOW, YOUR DECISION, UH, IS PRETTY SIMPLE HERE.
CASE LAW IS VERY CLEAR, UH, DESPITE WHAT YOU WERE JUST TOLD.
AND LET'S START WITH LOUISIANA'S, UH, CONSTITUTION, LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE, UH, 10, SECTION 10 SETS THE POWERS OF CIVIL SERVICE BOARDS, AND IT TALKS ABOUT YOUR ABILITY, UH, TO ADOPT RULES REGULATING EMPLOYMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, AND IT GOES ON.
THEN IT SAYS, AND OTHER PERSONNEL MATTERS AND TRANSACTIONS.
WELL, IT TALKS ABOUT PERSONNEL
[00:30:01]
MATTERS, NOT FORMER EMPLOYEES, NOT FORMER PERSONNEL.AND THAT LITTLE PHRASE RIGHT THERE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE CASES TO MEAN IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE THAT ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A, AN INTEREST, IF YOU WILL, IN YOUR EMPLOYMENT.
AND SO THAT'S WHEN LAUDER MILL ATTACHES.
WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE LAUDER MILL RIGHTS.
WE TALK ABOUT 'EM AT EVERY HEARING THAT WE HAVE, AND THAT'S HOW THOSE ATTACH TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES.
BUT CASES ARE CLEAR IF YOU VOLUNTARILY RESIGN FROM YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT, IT NO LONGER ATTACHES.
UM, WE CITED TWO CASES, OR TWO OR THREE CASES THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.
UM, THERE IS, THE MOORE CASE OUT OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SAID THAT AN OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL A DESIGNATION IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE THAT HE RETIRED UNDER INVESTIGATION.
OKAY? AND THE JEROME CASE, SAME THING.
UH, ALSO A CASE DEALING WITH, UH, THE NOTATION OF RETIRING UNDER INVESTIGATION, VERY SIMILAR TO THE DOTH YET CASE, UM, IN JEROME.
AND THEN HE LATER FINDS OUT THAT THERE'S THIS DESIGNATION IN HIS FILE, RETIRED UNDER INVESTIGATION.
IT'S THE NOTATION IN THE FILE THAT HE WANTS TO APPEAL, JUST LIKE MR. DOYE WANTS TO APPEAL THE FACT THAT IT SAYS ADMIN REVIEW AND HIS IA JACKET.
OKAY? THAT'S WHAT HE'S TRYING TO APPEAL HERE.
IT'S THE SAME SITUATION, OKAY? AND THE CASES ARE VERY CLEAR.
IF YOU VOLUNTARILY RESIGN, YOU NO LONGER HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL.
NOW, THEY UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERN ABOUT IT, BUT THAT IS THE LAW.
AND THE LAW IS VERY SPECIFIC AND VERY CLEAR ON IT.
YOU DID NOT HEAR THEM CITE ANY CASES DEALING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAD RETIRED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST.
ALL OF THE CASES CITED BY MR. DOSIER DEAL WITH INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE CURRENT EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT.
WELL, OF COURSE, LAUDER MILL STILL ATTACHES IN THAT SITUATION.
UH, WE'RE NOT ARGUING THAT IT DOESN'T, BUT IN THIS SITUATION, WHEN YOU HAVE VOLUNTARILY RE RE RETIRED OR RESIGNED, YOU NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
UM, WE ALSO ARGUE THAT IN THIS SITUATION, IT'S NOT CORRECTIVE ACTION.
TYPICALLY, CORRECTIVE ACTION DEALS WITH SOMETHING THAT INVOLVES A MONEY RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S SUSPENSION, DEMOTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT AFFECTS YOUR PAY IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR ANOTHER.
ALL OF THE CASES CITED EITHER DEAL WITH IT'S AFFECTING YOUR MONEY INTEREST, OR IT MAY AFFECT A RIGHT OR A, UH, A FUTURE DISCIPLINE, IF YOU WILL, LIKE A LETTER OF REPRIMAND WHERE YOU CAN KEEP THAT ON FILE.
AND THEN THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED LATER ON IN FURTHER DISCIPLINE, WHICH COULD THEN INCREASE THE DISCIPLINE THAT YOU HAVE, WHICH MAY AGAIN, AFFECT YOUR PAY.
SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE AREAS WHERE YOU SEE, UH, THESE THINGS CONSIDERED TO BE A DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
IN THIS SITUATION, HE CANNOT BE DISCIPLINED ANY FURTHER.
AGAIN, HE'S ALREADY RETIRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
SO IT IS NOT AN ACTION THAT IS DISCIPLINARY IN NATURE.
AGAIN, THE FINE WE DID, THERE WAS NO DISCIPLINE TO HIM IN THIS CASE.
LIKE THE LAW CANNOT BE MORE CLEAR IN THIS SITUATION THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO TAKE THIS APPEAL.
UH, AND COMMENSALLY, IF, IF OFFICERS WERE ALLOWED TO SIMPLY RETIRE, ACQUIT, AND THE DEPARTMENT COULD NO LONGER INVESTIGATE THE MATTER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SITUATION, YOU'RE REALLY DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, BUT AGAIN, YOU NEVER HAVE TO GET THERE.
YOU CAN SIMPLY LOOK AND SAY, WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER.
WELL, ONE OF THE OTHER INTERESTS THAT WAS GLOSSED OVER BY, UH, OPPOSING COUNSEL IS CITED IN MULTIPLE CASES THAT MR. DOER HAS CITED IS THOSE BLACK MARKS AFFECTING, UH, UH, FUTURE POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD DO HERE.
I AGREE THEY CAN'T DISCIPLINE HIM ANYMORE, BUT IF THEY, IF THE COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, THIS AFFECTS AN EMPLOYEE'S, A FORMER TENURED EMPLOYEE'S, FUTURE POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT, THEN OF COURSE HE HAS AN INTEREST AND THEY SAY, THIS IS NOT SUSTAINED.
BUT YET THE IA FILE REFERENCED ON MR. DOSIER'S IA HISTORY SAYS POLICY VIOLATIONS OCCURRED.
THIS WAS AN INDIVIDUAL ACT OF MALICE THAT DOESN'T EVEN RHYME WITH RETIRED UNDER INVESTIGATION.
AS SUCH, BOARD SHOULD MAINTAIN THE APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS.
ANY GOOD QUESTIONS FOR THE, UH, THE ATTORNEYS? WHEN YOU'RE SAYING, UH, HE'S BEING DINGED, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE MEANING LIKE FUTURE EMPLOYMENT? ABSOLUTELY.
[00:35:01]
A BLACK, A PERMANENT BLACK MARK ON YOUR RECORD.THOSE ARE CONSISTENT PHRASES IN THE CASE LAW I CITED AND PROVIDED TO THIS BOARD.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? HIS RETIREMENT WAS ACCEPTED ON THAT DATE.
I, I GUESS MY, MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS THE ARGUMENT HERE THAT MR. DOZIER IS, IS CLAIMING THAT HE DID NOT DO WHAT IS ALLEGED BY THE DEPARTMENT? UH, IN SHORT, YES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE OBJECT OF TODAY'S HEARING THAT WOULD GO TO THE MERITS.
BUT IF THE, UH, AND I BELIEVE THE APPEAL THAT WAS FILED THAT WE'RE FIGHTING RIGHT, FOR TODAY TO BE HEARD, UH, THE, THE, THE FORM THAT WE FILLED OUT IN INDICATES SUCH EXACTLY THAT.
ANY FURTHER, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR ANY DISCUSSION EXECUTIVE? YEAH,
[Executive Session ( Part 1 of 2 ) ]
WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE, UH, RIGHT TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.IF YOU CHOOSE, UH, THAT'S A BOARD DECISION.
MAYBE, MAYBE IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR US TO HAVE SOME CONVERSATION AMONG OURSELVES.
IN THAT CASE THEN LET US DECLARE THAT WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
YOU, YOU'RE GONNA NEED A MOTION AND A ROLL CALL VOTE.
RIGHT? SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? I MAKE A MOTION.
I SECOND, SECOND MOVE, AND SECOND THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND, UM, WE'LL BE BACK IN SESSION ONCE THAT IS COMPLETED.
WE ARE GOING TO RECONVENE AFTER BEING IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO RECONVENE? I MOVE TO RECONVENE.
I, WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE TO RECONVENE.
DEBUT THOMAS, PRESENT, YES OR NO? YES OR NO? OH, YES.
[9. Hear and Consider Arguments related to John Dauthier's Notice of Appeal. ( Part 2 of 2 )]
UH, IS THERE A, UH, IN THE DISCUSSION WITH MY BOARD MEMBERS OR ACTION TO BE TAKEN, SO DOES THE BOARD MEMBER HAVE ANY, UH, BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY BEFORE THEY MAKE ANY DECISION? NO.WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
HOWEVER, I WILL ORDER THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS FROM HIS, UM, IA FILE PERTAINING TO HIS RETIREMENT AND, AND REPLACE IT WITH RETIRE UNDER INVESTIGATION, OR GIVE HIM 30 DAYS TO, UH, ADD A RESPONSE TO THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS.
THAT'S, THAT'S NORMALLY UNDER THE LA REVISED STATUTE 40, 25, 33.
AND FROM WHAT I HEAR, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE GAVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, BECAUSE IF ANYBODY DEPART, UM, EMPLOYMENT EVEN IS RETIRED, RESIGNED, AND THERE'S NEGATIVE COMMENTS GOING IN HIS FILE, HE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS.
YOU NEED A SECOND? DO I HAVE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? IS THERE NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON BOARD? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN THE MEETING BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE APPEAL CONCERNING THOMAS H. WALLACE.
YOU WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION? WHO,
[00:40:02]
UH, NO, I THINK IVY WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION.I I THOUGHT I HEARD LIKE AN AL IT WAS A EITHER OR MOTION, WHICH, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT CARRIED? I DON'T, IT WAS, IT WAS JUST ONE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS TO EITHER REMOVE THE NEGATIVE COMMENT FROM THE FILE OR GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND WITHIN 30 DAYS.
WELL, THAT'S, IT'S AN EITHER OR PROPOSITION THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY BY DEFAULT.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE INSTRUCTED TO EXACTLY DO MR. RAINS AND REMOVE THE NEGATIVE CONS COMMENTS OUTTA THERE.
SO BASICALLY, THE BOARD'S SAYING THEY DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY THINK THAT THE MARKS OR WHATEVER WAS PUT IN, IN, IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE RESPONDED TO PURSUANT TO LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 40 25, 33 ON PERSONNEL FILE.
THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO HAVE HAPPENED.
SO THEY'RE BASICALLY TELLING THE, UH, B R P D EITHER TAKE IT OUT OF HIS FILE OR GIVE HIM THE 30 DAYS THAT HE'S ENTITLED TO UNDER 40, 25, 33.
AND AT THAT POINT, IF HE DECIDE, IF THEY DECIDE TO KEEP IT IN, COME BACK AND SEE IT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY, IF THEY BREACH THIS ORDER, SO THEY, THEY ONLY HAVE TWO OPTIONS, IF THEY BREACH IT, COME BACK TO US AND WE'LL APPROPRIATELY DEAL WITH IT
BUT I, THAT KIND OF SOUNDED DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE MEMBER WAS ABOUT TO SAY.
AND HE, HE BASICALLY EXPLAINED.
[10. Hear and Decide Appeal Concerning Thomas H. Wallace ( Part 1 of 2 )]
ITEM NUMBER 10 TO HERE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL CONCERNING THOMAS WALLACE.WE HAVE BOTH THE ATTORNEYS PRESENT.
UM, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF MS. GUILLO IS, I MEAN, SHE'S ON THERE.
ALL RIGHT, MR. KERSHAW, YOU'RE UP? YES, SIR.
UM, THERE WERE SOME STIPULATIONS SUBMITTED ON THIS ISSUE.
LET ME GET ALL THIS, THE EXHIBITS AND STUFF TO YOU GUYS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, DO YOU WANT US TO STATE OUR NAMES FOR THE RECORD? THE STIPULATIONS? YES, MA'AM.
NO, I THINK, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MAKING APPEARANCES, MS. GILL? WELL, FIRST, UH, YES.
WELL, FIRST, UH, ORDER OF BUSINESS.
IF WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES, I'D LIKE TO SWEAR 'EM IN AT THIS TIME.
ARE WE GONNA HAVE ANY WITNESSES?
ALRIGHT, SO IF Y'ALL WANT TO ONE EACH? YES.
UH, DO Y'ALL WANT TO APPROACH SO I CAN SWEAR Y'ALL IN REAL QUICK? SLIDE THAT DOWN.
DO YOU GUYS SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD, SIR.
AND WHAT'S YOUR RANK? MR. WALLACE FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR.
UH, F E O UH, WALLACE SAID THEY WERE GONNA TELL THE TRUTH AND WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW, CAN COUNSEL MAKE THEIR APPEARANCES FOR THE RECORD? UH, DAWN
ALRIGHT, SO ONE THING WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL TALKING IN THE MICROPHONE SO THAT MS. GUILLO CAN HEAR.
UH, SO, UH, MR. KERSHAW JUST MADE HIS, HIS APPEARANCE, BUT EVERYTHING NEEDS
[00:45:01]
TO BE IN THE MIC.WE, WE HAD JOINT STIPULATIONS AS WELL AS EXHIBITS, AND I GUESS WE NEED DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT Y'ALL WANT US TO MAKE OPENING COMMENTS OR DO THOSE FIRST.
WE ARE GONNA, UM, READ THE STIPULATIONS INTO THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL DO OPENING, OPENING STATEMENTS AT 15 MINUTES A PIECE.
IS THAT RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR.
MS. MONICA, DO YOU MIND READING THE, UH, STIPULATION INTO THE RECORD? MM-HMM.
PETITIONER THOMAS WALLACE AND THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE THROUGH THE BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT, HEREBY AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
NUMBER ONE, AS OF MARCH 9TH, 2023, THOMAS WALLACE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT WHO HAD IN EXCESS OF 19 YEARS OF SERVICE AND WHO HAD ATTAINED PERMANENT STATUS IN THE BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
ON ON ABOUT MARCH 18TH, 2023, WALLACE WAS PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE, AND GIVEN HIS NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION EXHIBIT TWO REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AS SPECIFIED THEREIN.
IN PARTICULAR, THREE TEXT MESSAGES SENT TO CHIEF KIMBALL ON MARCH 9TH, 2023.
NUMBER THREE, ON MARCH 20TH, 2023, WALLACE WAS GIVEN HIS NOTICE OF INTERROGATION EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE, REGARDING THE SAME MATTERS HE WAS INTERROGATED ON MARCH 24TH, 2023.
NUMBER FOUR, ON MARCH 26TH, 2023, WALLACE WAS GIVEN HIS PREDETERMINATION NOTICE EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR, SETTING A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING FOR MARCH 31ST, 2023.
AT THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING, HE WAS REPRESENTED BY A UNION REP AND WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.
THE DETAILS OF THE HEARING ARE CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION.
ON APRIL 13TH, 2023, WALLACE WAS GIVEN HIS NOTICE OF SUSPENSION, EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE, NOTIFYING OF HIS SUSPENSION OF 89 DAYS AND HIS DEMOTION TO FIRE CAPTAIN OPERATOR AND NOT ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE THE TEST FOR FIRE CAPTAIN UNTIL AFTER JULY 12TH, 2025.
NUMBER SIX, IN AUGUST OF 2022, WALLACE WASN'T INVOLVED IN A VERBAL ALTERCATION WITH A SUBORDINATE, AND THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATION HE WAS VERBALLY COUNSELING.
IT WAS DETERMINED HE WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING CLASSES PROVIDED BY HUMAN RESOURCES, ACCOUNTABILITY, APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE, WORKPLACE, ADEQUATE SELF-AWARENESS WITH COWORKERS AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION WITH COWORKERS.
NUMBER SEVEN, ATTACHED TO THE FOLLOWING RULES AND REGULATIONS NUMBERED IN GLOBAL AS EXHIBIT SIX, LOUISIANA, R S 30 2500.
BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS SECTIONS 1.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.53, AND 4.54 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING AND ANY APPEALS THEREOF, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THEY WILL NOT DISPUTE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE ALLEGED TEXT MESSAGES.
FURTHER, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO ANY TIME DELAYS OR PROTOCOL INADEQUACIES ON BEHALF OF EITHER PARTY.
THE PARTIES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THESE STIPULATIONS IF THERE IS A SEPARATE HEARING OR FORM REGARDING THESE ISSUES, WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE THIS HEARING OR ANY OTHER APPEALS AGREED TO.
ON THIS 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BY KYLE KERSHAW, ATTORNEY FOR EMPLOYEE THOMAS WALLACE AGREED ON THIS 24 DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BY DAWN GILIA,
[00:50:01]
DAWN, ATTORNEY FOR EMPLOYER BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.OKAY, COUNSEL, DO THE STIPULATIONS, WERE THEY READ APPROPRIATELY? YES.
AND, UM, I THINK YOU, I SHOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STIPULATIONS.
THIS IS A, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
UH, LET'S SEE, WHAT DID WE DO? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A SECOND.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL START WITH OPENING STATEMENTS FROM MS UH, GILL.
WE, WE ASKED THAT THE EXHIBITS V ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BEFORE ALL SUDDEN.
IF POSSIBLE, I NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE EXHIBITS, THE, THE JOINT EXHIBITS.
WHO'S GONNA, IT'D BE ON THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO START, RIGHT.
I WILL BE BRIEF, PARTICULARLY WITH THE STIPULATIONS.
UH, THIS MATTER INVOLVES A MOTION FOR TWO YEARS, AS WELL AS AN 89 DAY SUSPENSION.
UH, THE STIPULATION SHOWED THAT THE PROCESS WAS, UH, HANDLED CORRECTLY AT EVERY PHASE.
UH, THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN THREE TEXT MESSAGES THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT.
THEY WERE INAPPROPRIATE CONSISTED OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS, IN PARTICULAR AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTITUTED INSUBORDINATION AS WELL AS THREATS.
THESE, UH, TEXTS WERE SUFFICIENT TO TERMINATE THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS HIS REFUSAL TO COOPERATE IN THE PROCESS.
FINALLY, AT THE PRETERM HEARING, HE ADMITTED HIS WRONGDOING, ADMITTED THAT THE ACTS WERE IN FACT SUFFICIENT FOR TERMINATION AND PLED FOR HIS JOB.
UM, THE CHIEF SEEING THAT THERE WAS REMARKS AS WELL AS A REALIZATION BY HIM, THAT HE IN FACT HAD COMMITTED ERRORS.
UM, THE CHIEF DECIDED TO NOT TERMINATE HIM, BUT RATHER GIVE HIM THIS DEMOTION AND SUSPENSION.
UH, THE DEMOTION WAS FOR 89 DAYS.
THAT'S THE LONGEST, I'M SORRY, THE SUSPENSION WAS FOR 89 DAYS, WHICH IS THE LONGEST SUSPENSION YOU CAN HAVE.
AND THEN IN PARTICULAR WAS TO PUN PUNISH THE WRONGFUL ACTS.
UH, THE DEMOTION WAS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHAT THE CHIEF DETERMINED WAS THAT HE COULD NOT BE A FIRE CAPTAIN AND A SUPERVISOR.
THAT THAT WAS NOT, NOT GOOD FOR THE WHOLE OF THE SERVICE.
HOWEVER, HE DID WANT TO GIVE THE APPELLANT THE ABILITY TO KEEP HIS JOB.
AND SO HE GAVE HIM THIS LAST CHANCE.
UM, THE, THE FACTS IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
EVERYBODY AGREES IT'S A MATTER OF SEVERITY.
AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT THE CHIEF HAD, CERTAINLY COULD HAVE FIRED HIM, BUT DID THE RIGHT THING IN, IN PROVIDING GARCIA AND ALLOWED HIM TO KEEP HIS JOB.
WE ASK THAT YOU HOLD THE CHIEF, MS. GEE, I AND IN RELATION TO YOUR EXHIBITS, UM, EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN SEEMS TO BE, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, FOR ANYONE ELSE, UH, INELIGIBLE.
I, I MEAN, I CAN'T SEE IT LEGIBLE.
THE, THE CONTENT OF THOSE TEXTS, UH, WERE SO SMALL, BUT WE WANTED Y'ALL TO SEE THAT THEY ARE TEXTS, THEY ARE IN THE ACTUAL, UH, DOCUMENTS WRITTEN OUT WORD FOR WORD.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A GOOD TIME NOW WHERE Y'ALL WANNA STOP AND READ THOSE, OR I WAS GONNA ASK THE CHIEF TO DO SO.
WELL, I GUESS WE COULD DO IT LATER IF WE, IF YOU, IF YOU HAD ALREADY PLANNED TO HAVE HIM READ THEM, WE CAN WAIT TILL THAT POINT.
SO WE WANNA WAIT FOR THE CHIEF.
IF, IF YOU HAD ALREADY PLANNED FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
[00:55:01]
I HAVE SEVEN OF THEM.YOU CAN PASS IT AROUND IF YOU LIKE.
IS YOUR MIC ON MR. YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
THIS, THE, THAT'S, IT'S THE TEXT MESSAGES.
IT'S JUST BLOWN UP SO THEY CAN READ IT.
BUT I WILL, UH, STIPULATE THAT IN THE EXHIBITS IN THE, IT'S, THE THREE TEXT MESSAGES ARE ADEQUATELY REFLECTED IN THE, UM, THE LETTERS THAT WERE ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS, THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE, THE, UM, NOTICE OF SUSPENSION.
SO I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE AN 89 DAY SUSPENSION IS QUITE SEVERE.
ONE MORE DAY GETS YOU A TERMINATION.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE A DEMOTION IS QUITE SEVERE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN OVER 19 YEARS IN SERVICE, WORKED HIS BEHIND OFF TO MAKE IT TO A FIRE CAPTAIN, AND THEN IS KNOCKED BACK, UM, KNOCKED BACK A DEMOTION AT ALL.
HOWEVER, SO YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE IN THESE, THESE TEXT MESSAGES WILL, WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU.
THEY WANNA SAY, THESE WERE THREATS.
I WANT YOU TO READ 'EM CAREFULLY BECAUSE WHAT WHAT'S WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE? I MEAN, A THREAT TO ME IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THREATENING SOMEBODY WITH BODILY HARM.
YOU'RE THREATENING SOMEBODY, HEY, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA DO SOMETHING UNDERHANDED TO YOU.
UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE THREATS.
BUT WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN, IN, IF WE USE THEIR DEFINITION OF WHAT A THREAT IS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WARNING AND A THREAT? THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.
SO WHAT'S CASE IN POINT? WE HAVE LAWS.
WE HAVE LAWS THAT WE ARE ALL, UM, THE CRIMINAL STATUTES, WE'RE ALL DEEMED TO KNOW WHAT THEY SAY AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ABIDE BY THEM.
UM, SO TECHNICALLY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE LAWS THAT SAY YOU CANNOT DO CERTAIN CONDUCT OR ELSE YOU'RE GONNA FACE THIS CONSEQUENCE, THEIR DEFINITION, THOSE ARE THREATS.
OKAY? AND IN THIS CASE, YOU'LL SEE WHAT THE TEXT MESSAGES WERE, UM, ARE PORTRAYED OR, OR HOW THEY, YOU READ 'EM CAREFULLY.
IT IS, YOU'LL SEE, UH, MR. WALLACE WILL TESTIFY.
HE WAS ADVISED THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING ON, SOME KIND OF COVERUP WAS GOING ON WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, AND HE DIDN'T TAKE CONLEY TO IT.
AND THIS WAS A REACHING OUT TO THE CHIEF LIKE, HEY, IF I FIND OUT THAT Y'ALL ARE COVERING THIS UP, I'M GONNA LET EVERYBODY KNOW ABOUT IT.
HOW IS THAT A THREAT? PLEASE TELL ME HOW THAT A THREAT IS THAT IN FACT, ALL FIRE CAPTAINS, ALL THE EMPLOYEES, THEY UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO LET THE OTHER EMPLOYEES KNOW.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, UM, TO LET 'EM KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON WITH THE, WITH ANY, NOT JUST THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT WITH ANY PART OF THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ENTITLED, NOT ONLY ENTITLED TO DO IT, BUT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO IT, TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT THEY'RE, ESPECIALLY AS A FIRE CAPTAIN WHO'S IN A SUPERVISOR POSITION.
UM, SO HE HAS A RIGHT, UM, TO ADVISE THIS.
AND THAT'S ALL HE WAS LETTING THEM KNOW, RIGHT.
LETTING THE CHIEF KNOW, LIKE, HEY, LOOK, IF Y'ALL ARE, IF THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON, THEN THIS IS WHAT I'M GONNA DO.
AND HE, WHAT, WHAT DOES HE SAY HE'S GONNA DO? I'M GONNA LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT'S THE QUOTE.
WHAT YOU'RE GONNA FIND OUT THROUGH HIS TESTIMONIES, THEY'VE BEEN KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
CAPTAIN WALLACE, HIS, UM, AND CHIEF KIMBLE'S FATHERS ARE VERY GOOD FRIENDS.
UH, HANK HAS, I THINK HE'S, HE'S BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR OVER 19 YEARS.
HE'S KNOWN CHIEF KIMBLE FOR THAT LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
AND YOU'LL, AND WHAT HE SAID AT THE, UH, AT HIS PREDETERMINATION HEARING WASN'T THAT, YEAH, YOU CAN FIRE ME.
IT WAS, NO, I KNOW I DID WRONG.
I SHOULD HAVE APPROACHED YOU TO DISCUSS THIS.
AND HE, HE'S GONNA HEAR, YOU CAN HEAR THAT FROM HIM TODAY.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AND HE CAN AGREES WITH THAT.
LIKE, YEAH, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TEXTED, I SHOULD HAVE HANDLED IT MORE, UM, BEING HOW I SHOULD HAVE HANDLED IT WAS DON'T APPROACH 'EM AND DISCUSS IT BEFORE JUST SENDING THESE TEXT MESSAGES REGARDLESS.
UM, THIS IS, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, ONE DAY FROM BEING, UH, TERMINATED AND THEN THERE'S A TWO YEAR DEMOTION.
FIRST OFF, LET LEMME TELL YOU, THE CHIEF DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISALLOW HIM TO SIT FOR THE TEST FOR TWO YEARS.
OKAY? HE CAN'T MAKE THAT A PART OF HIS DISCIPLINE.
AND IF YOU NOTICE IN, IN TITLE 33 AND SECTION 2,500 THAT THEY CITE, IT SPELLS OUT WHAT KIND OF DISCIPLINARY MEASURES THE CHIEF CAN TAKE.
AND THEY GIVE A CERTAIN DEADLINE FOR THE NUMBER OF DAYS SUSPENSION
[01:00:01]
THEY SAY YOU CAN DO FOR UP TO 90 DAYS SUSPENSION.BUT THEN THEY SAY, AND OR YOU CAN DEMOTE AND THERE'S SOME, SEVERAL OTHER THINGS, BUT THAT'S WHAT HE CAN DO.
THE EXTENT OF HIS DISCIPLINE IS HE CAN DEMOTE.
OKAY, HE CAN SUSPEND AND HE CAN DEMOTE, BUT HE CAN'T DEMOTE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE AS SOON AS THE NEXT TEST IS UP FOR WHATEVER POSITION IS AHEAD OF HIM, HE HAS, HE'S ELIGIBLE TO TAKE IT AS LONG AS Y'ALL CERTIFY HIM TO DO IT.
BUT BY, IF YOU UPHOLD THE CHIEF OR THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO, UM, DO A TWO YEAR DEMOTION, BASICALLY YOU'RE GIVING HIM YOUR AUTHORITY, OKAY? AND HE'S EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY, SO ALL HE CAN DO IS KNOCK HIM BACK AND THEN IT'S UP TO Y'ALL TO LET HIM TAKE THE TEST.
AND THEN IF THE CHIEF, IF HE PASSES AND HE'S THE NEXT ONE IN LINE, THE CHIEF WANTS TO PROMOTE HIM, HE CAN, BUT HE CAN'T PREVENT HIM FROM ENTERING THAT PROCESS.
UM, SO ONCE AGAIN, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE TEXT MESSAGES CAREFULLY, SEE WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE A THREAT IN THERE.
IF YOU DO CONSIDER IT TO BE A THREAT, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS MORE OF A, HEY, IF I FIND OUT THAT YOU'VE DONE THIS WRONG AND YOU'RE TRYING TO COVER THIS UP, I'M GONNA LET EVERYBODY KNOW.
AND IF THAT'S A, THAT, THAT, THAT'S JUST NOT A THREAT AND THAT'S NOT A THREAT THAT HE SHOULD BE, RECEIVE AN 89 DAY SUSPENSION AND A TWO YEAR DEMOTION FOR.
UH, YES, WE WOULD CALL THE CHIEF TO TESTIFY.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MICHAEL KIMBALL, BAT RIDGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
CHIEF, WILL YOU FIRST, UM, EXPLAIN YOUR BACKGROUND WITH, WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPELLANT AND HOW LONG YOU'VE KNOWN HIM? YES, MA'AM.
I'VE KNOWN, UH, MR. WALLACE FOR 19 PLUS YEARS, UH, THROUGH THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND A LITTLE TIME PRIOR, UH, BOTH OUR FATHERS WERE, WAS EMPLOYEES HERE IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR.
AND WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S THE CASE CASE WITH MANY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
HOW DID THESE TEXT MESSAGES FIRST COME TO YOUR ATTENTION? I RECEIVED THE, THE TEXT MESSAGES ONE NIGHT OR ONE LATE AFTERNOON, UH, FROM MR. WALLACE.
AND I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH IS THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE.
AND GO AHEAD AND READ THE PARAGRAPHS.
I THINK IT'S STARTING AT THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
GO AHEAD AND READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD, THE THREE PARAGRAPHS ABOUT THE TEXT.
THAT WAY EVERYONE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP AND LISTEN ON THURSDAY, MA'AM? YES.
ON THURSDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2023 AT 1551 HOURS, I FIRE CHIEF MICHAEL J KIMBLE RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM YOU, HANK WALLACE, YOUR TEST, YOUR TEXT MESSAGE STATED THE FOLLOWING, PLEASE DON'T RESPOND.
I WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF OUR CHIEF OF OPERATIONS STUFF AND ENSURE THAT THE GUYS THAT STILL GET ON THE TRUCKS AND KNOW HOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS TAKEN CARE OF THINGS CAN GET ERASED.
BUT FOLKS TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEY SAW WILL NEVER GO AWAY.
YOU THEN SENT A SECOND TEST MESSAGE ON THURSDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2023 AT 1557 HOURS.
THIS MESSAGE, YOU STATED THE FOLLOWING, I HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE DIGGING INTO IT.
FINALLY, ON MARCH 9TH, 2023 AT 1704 HOURS, YOU SENT A THIRD MESSAGE.
YOU STATED THE FOLLOWING IN THIS TEXT MESSAGE, JUST LET PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO HIDE THINGS FROM ME AFTER I GOT QUARANTINED ABOUT SAVING A HOUSE IN SOUTH BATON ROUGE.
ALSO, KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE UNIT THAT FOLKS ARE COVERING UP FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION, I WANT THEM, I WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO EXPOSE IT.
I HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT, LOT OF SUPPOSEDLY F O M OR HELPING ME.
[01:05:01]
RECEIVED THESE TEXTS, UH, HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT 'EM? HOW DID I KNOW ABOUT IT? NO, SHE SAID, HOW DO YOU FEEL, FEEL ABOUT IT? OH, I DID NOT.I DID NOT TAKE, UH, KINDLY TO THIS, UH, TO HAVE A SUBORDINATE TEXT MESSAGING ME ABOUT AN ISSUE GOING ON WITHIN MY DEPARTMENT.
THAT WAS ONE, INACCURATE INFORMATION.
UH, AND TO TAKE THE, THE WITHIN OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS OF HOW YOU TWO SUPPOSED TO SPEAK TO A SUPERVISOR, HE, UH, HE DID NOT FOLLOW THAT RULE AT ALL.
AND FOR HIM TO GO OUT AND, UH, MAKE THESE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME AND MY ADMINISTRATION, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.
AND ALTHOUGH YOU WERE NEVER TOLD BY HIM EXACTLY WHAT THEY REFERENCED, CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD RUMORS THAT WERE GOING AROUND AT THAT TIME, WHICH THEY, THIS PROPERLY REFERENCED? YES, MA'AM.
UH, IT STARTED OFF THAT WE WAS TOLD THAT A, A CHIEF OF FOUR BUGLES HAD RECEIVED A D W I AND THAT, THAT WE WERE COVERING IT UP THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENT.
AND AS IT WENT ON THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT WAS LEARNED THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MY CHIEF OF OPERATIONS HAD BEEN, IN FACT IN AN ACCIDENT AND I WAS NOT REPORTING IT, AND THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A D W I AND WE WAS COVERING HIM UP.
AND MY CHIEF OPERATIONS IS MY NUMBER TWO MAN.
HE IS THE CHIEF OF ALL SUPPRESSION PERSONNEL IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO THEY IN, IN INCLUDED SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU THAT WOULD'VE BEEN IMPROPER, PERHAPS EVEN ILLEGAL, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THERE'S SOME OTHER REFERENCES IN HERE ABOUT F O M AND MAYBE SOME DIFFERENT THINGS THAT, THAT NOBODY CAN UNDERSTAND.
CAN YOU GIVE US ANY CONTEXT OF THOSE REFERENCES? IT IS BEEN TOLD TO ME THAT THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENT, F O M STANDS FOR FRIENDS OF MICHAEL, DID ANYTHING PROMPT THIS? IN OTHER WORDS, HAD SOMETHING HAPPENED RECENTLY WITH MR. WALLACE THAT PROMPTED THIS? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO MA'AM.
HAD, HAD HE BEEN RECENTLY OR IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, PROMOTED TO FIRE CAPTAIN? THAT IS CORRECT.
HAD YOU HAD OTHER INSTANCES, UH, WITH HIS DIFFICULTY OF INTERACTING WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHILE HE WAS A FIRE CAPTAIN? YES, MA'AM.
UM, EARLIER, DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE HERE IN FRONT OF ME.
HE WAS, UH, RESPONDED TO AN INCIDENT, UH, HAD HAD AN EXCHANGE OF WORDS WITH HIS, UH, FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR.
UM, IT STARTED AT THE SCENE AFTER THE SCENE, IT CONTINUED, IT TURNED INTO WHERE THE SHIFT SUPERVISOR FOR THAT NIGHT HAD TO GO TO THE FIREHOUSE AND SEPARATE THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS.
UH, DUE TO THE, UH, TENTS SITUATION BETWEEN THE TWO, WE BROUGHT HIM IN, DID AN INVESTIGATION, BROUGHT MR. WALLACE IN BACK IN, SENT HIM THE HUMAN RESOURCES TO ATTEND FIVE CLASSES OF TRYING TO GIVE HIM THE KNOWLEDGE AND OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN HOW TO HAVE PROPER WORK ETIQUETTE OF WORKING WITH, UH, THE PEOPLE THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO SUPERVISE AND LEAD.
AND IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING ON PAGE THREE OF EXHIBIT FOUR, UH, THE COWORKER ON JUNE 2ND, 2022? YES, MA'AM.
DID MR. UH WALLACE COOPERATE WITH THE INTERROGATION AND INVESTIGATION? NO, HE DID NOT.
AND IN WHAT MANNER DID HE NOT COOPERATE WHEN HE WAS INTER, UH, INTERROGATED, UH, BY TWO INDIVIDUALS IN THE BAT ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT? HE WAS GIVEN THE GUIDANCE NOT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS QUESTIONS WAS ASKED, TRYING TO PERTAIN WHAT WAS HE SPEAKING OF, SO WE COULD GET KNOWLEDGE, FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THESE TEXT MESSAGES MEANT.
HE, UH, HE WOULD NOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS DURING THE INTERROGATION.
DID HE CHANGE HIS STANCE ON THAT AT ANY POINT IN TIME? YES, MA'AM.
FOR THE, UH, PREDETERMINATION HEARING, HE ARRIVED AND HE DID IN FACT, AT THAT TIME, UH, GIVE A STATEMENT.
AND WHAT, WHAT DID HE TELL YOU AT THE PRETERM HEARING? AT THE PRETERM HEARING, HE TOLD ME THAT HE, UH, KNEW THAT HE SHOULD HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AND THAT HE WAS SORRY FOR WHAT HE DID.
HE KNEW THAT I HAVE AN OPEN DOOR POLICY.
HE KNEW THAT HE COULD COME SEE ME AT ANY TIME AND HAVE A CONVERSATION TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.
DID HE SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE BELIEVED HIS ACTIONS WERE WRONGFUL OR NOT? HE STATED HE KNEW THAT HIS STATEMENT WAS WRONG AND THE WAY HE PERFORMED AND ACTED WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
AS A FIRE CAPTAIN IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT,
[01:10:02]
DID HE COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED A SUBORDINATE TO DO THAT TO HIM? IN FACT, HE DID.HE SAID HE WOULD NOT WANT A SUBORDINATE TO DO TO HIM AS HE DID TO ME.
DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE BELIEVED YOU COULD TERMINATE HIM FOR ONE OR MORE OF THESE OFFENSES? YES, HE DID.
AND WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT IT APPEARED TO YOU THAT HE TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS? THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT BEING THE CASE, WHY DID YOU MAKE THE DETERMINATION TO ISSUE THE PUNISHMENT THAT YOU ISSUED? THE REASON I MADE THAT DECISION WAS TO GIVE, UH, AT THE TIME CAPTAIN WALLACE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE HIS PATH IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE HIM A SECOND CHANCE TO MOVE FORWARD OF HIM COMING FORWARD SAYING, HEY, I DID IT.
I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF MY ACTIONS KNOWINGLY THAT THEY'RE WRONG.
I KNOW THAT YOU CAN TERMINATE ME.
I KNOW THAT WHAT I DID IS A DISGRACE TO THIS BATON ROU FIRE, FIRE DEPARTMENT AND I'M GONNA TAKE A FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.
THAT'S WHY I DID NOT TERMINATE HIM AT THE TIME.
WHY DID YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ALLOW HIM TO BE A CAPTAIN FOR TWO YEARS? WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT? WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.
MA'AM IS A FIRE CAPTAIN IS THE MOST INSTRUMENTAL PERSON IN THE BAT ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THIS PERSON LEADS HIS PEOPLE EVERY SINGLE DAY.
HE SETS THE TONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW HIM.
IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THE MEN AND WOMEN BELOW HIM KNOW WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT, AND THE INFORMATION GOES TO THEM.
SO BY HIM GOING OUT AND GIVING FALSE INFORMATION TO THE SUBORDINATES THAT HE SUPERVISES CAUSES TURMOIL IN MY DEPARTMENT.
I CANNOT HAVE A FIRE CAPTAIN GIVEN FALSE INFORMATION THAT CAUSES THEM TO NOT TRUST THIS ADMINISTRATION.
IT WOULD GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS TO GET THE PROPER TRAINING TO COME BACK AND BE A BETTER FIRE CAPTAIN.
DID YOU BELIEVE ALLOWING HIM TO BE REINSTATED TO FIRE CAPTAIN WOULD IN FACT, UH, DO DAMAGE TO THE WHOLE OF THE SERVICE BY ALLOWING HIM THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS A DISHONOR.
HE IS SUPPOSED TO SET THE STANDARDS I SAID AND LEAD TO PEOPLE THAT HIS ACTIONS SHOWS THE MEN AND WOMEN BELOW HIM THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
AND BY OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE SWORE OATH TO STANDBY, HE BROKE THAT.
AND DID YOU INTEND FOR THIS DISCIPLINE TO BE THE SECOND HARSHEST TO TERMINATION? IN OTHER WORDS, IT WASN'T TERMINATION, IT WAS ONE STEP DOWN.
I WANTED TO SHOW UP AND, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS JUSTIFIED.
100% IS JUSTIFIED WHEN I COULD HAVE TERMINATED HIM TO GIVE HIM A SECOND CHANCE WITH A DISCIPLINE OF TIME OFF.
AND A DEMOTION IS 100% CORRECT.
AND HAD HE NOT TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS, YOU LIKELY WOULD'VE TERMINATED, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, ANY OTHER STATEMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THIS, UH, TO EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY YOU TOOK THOSE ACTIONS? NOT AT THIS TIME.
UM, SO YOU CONSIDER, BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY JUST NOW, YOU DO CONSIDER THE DISCIPLINE YOU GAVE, UH, CAPTAIN WALLACE SEVERE.
IT'S WHAT'S DESERVING FOR THE INFRACTION.
AND I MEAN, A DEMOTION IS SEVERE IN AND OF ITSELF, CORRECT? IT, IT IS WHAT'S NEEDED TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD.
AND AN 89 DAY SUSPENSION IS ALSO SEVERE IN AND OF ITSELF, CORRECT? I DON'T, IT IS NOT SEVERE IN MY OPINION, COUNSEL, IT'S THE INFRACTION FOR WHAT HE DID IS WHAT'S DESERVING.
NOW LOOKING AT YOUR, UM, THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION, WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS ONE OF THE STIPULATED EXHIBITS, LET'S SEE.
I'M SORRY, NOT THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION, THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION, WHICH IS, UM, EXHIBIT FIVE.
UM, YOU FOUND THAT CAPTAIN WALLACE HAD VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT POLICY PROVISIONS I WITHIN THE POLICY OF BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT? YES, SIR.
IN THAT YOU FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS.
[01:15:01]
CORRECT.AND IT'S BECAUSE HE VIOLATED THOSE THREE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS, VIOLATED ALL THREE OF 'EM IS WHY YOU RENDERED THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT YOU DID AS WELL AS OF UNBECOMING UNDER SECTION 33 2500.
SO IT'S BECAUSE OF THOSE THREE.
AND IN FACT YOU STATE THAT, UM, HE VIOLATED SECTIONS 1.7.
THIS IS ON PAGE TWO OF THE LETTER YOU STATE.
UM, AS I'M READING THIS, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED SECTION 1.7 4.53 AND 4.54 OF THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT RE RULES AND REGULATIONS? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THEN YOU FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED REVISED STATUTE 33 2500, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THEN YOU MENTIONED HERE REVISED STATUTE 33 25 62, YOU'VE ALSO FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THAT.
SO ALL THOSE PLAYED INTO YOUR DECISION TO RENDER THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT YOU DID? CORRECT.
UM, WHO PARTICIPATED, WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION IN THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION? YES, SIR.
I MYSELF, MICHAEL J KIMMEL IS THE FIRE CHIEF.
CARL D. ESTES, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, JEREMY S SPIELMAN, MY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIONS DARRELL EDGES, DEPUTY CHIEF TOM JACKSON, DEPUTY CHIEF JOEY MONT, DEPUTY CHIEF LAVERT KEMP, CHIEF OF INVESTIGATIONS.
AND IN YOUR TURN YOU TO PAGE TWO OF THE, UM, NOTICE OF SUSPENSION IN ATTENDANCE AT THE PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING WAS OBVIOUSLY CAPTAIN WALLACE, BUT THEN YOU MENTIONED CHIEF OF INVESTIGATIONS, LEVERT KEMP, CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, JEREMY SPILLMAN, DEPUTY CHIEF DARRELL EDGES, AND THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE WADE ASHFORD, AND THEN YOURSELF? CORRECT.
ARE THOSE THE PEOPLE OTHER THAN CAPTAIN WALLACE? ARE THOSE THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY, UM, PARTICIPATED IN THE DECIDING THE DISCIPLINE? THEY WAS IN THE ROOM FOR THE PRETERM HEARING.
WHO DECIDED THE DISCIPLINE? WAS IT YOU AND YOU ALONE? ME AND MY STAFF.
AND WHO WOULD THAT BE? UH, THIS PEOPLE THAT'S HERE LEFT, WHO'S LISTED IN THIS LEFT THIS INVESTIGATION? CORRECT.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE DECISION TO RENDER DISCIPLINE.
AND IN THE INVESTIGATION, THOSE PEOPLE WAS INVOLVED IN THE, IN, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING TO THE END.
THE PEOPLE I READ YOU OFF AT FIRST.
SO THIS WAS THE TIME WHO WAS IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME OF THIS HEARING.
UM, AND ISN'T IT TRUE IN THE, IN HIS PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING, HE TOLD YOU HE DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT THIS RUMOR? HE STATED THAT, BUT IT WAS INACCURATE.
UM, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT THAT'S INACCURATE, CORRECT? NO, SIR.
SO THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAD AT THAT HEARING WAS HIS TESTIMONY AND HIS TESTIMONY WAS, I DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY ELSE I CAME DIRECTLY TO YOU WITH THIS.
AND WHEN I SAID THAT'S NOT TRUE, HE DIDN'T COME BACK WITH A REBUTTAL EITHER.
UM, NOW DO YOU EXPECT YOUR OFFICERS TO GIVE ORDERS TO THEIR SUBORDINATES ORDERS OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN ORDER BEEN GIVEN? YES.
AND YOU EXPECT YOUR OFFICERS TO DO THAT TO THEIR SUBORDINATES? CORRECT.
AND YOU EXPECT THEM TO DISCIPLINE THEIR SUBORDINATES IF THEY DO NOT FILE THE ORDERS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, AND DO YOU EXPECT THEM SUPERVISORS TO WARN THE SUBORDINATES IF THEY'RE SKIRTING THE LINE OR THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR, THEIR BEHAVIOR MIGHT NOT BE ACCEPTABLE? WELL, COUNSEL, AT TIMES WE, WE HAVE A POLICY OF, OF RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH SPELLS IT OUT, UHHUH,
SO SOMETIMES WE, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, BUT YOU WOULD EXPECT THEM IF, IF A SUPERVISOR, IF, IF A SUPERVISOR, AN OFFICER KNOWS
[01:20:01]
OF A SUBORDINATE THAT MIGHT BE ENGAGING IN BEHAVIOR THAT HE SHOULDN'T BE OR SHE, SHE SHOULDN'T BE, YOU EXPECT THE SUPERVISOR TO WARN THEM, HEY, IF YOU DO A, B, OR C, THEN D E R F CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO YOU, CORRECT? IF THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES, YES, SIR.UM, AND WOULD YOU EXPECT YOUR OFFICERS TO DISCUSS OR WARN ANOTHER PERSON OF THE SAME RANK IF THEY PERCEIVE THE SAME OF A, UM, OF SOMEONE OF THE SAME RANK? AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE SAME BEHAVIOR.
IF THEY SEE BEHAVIOR THAT, HEY, YOU MAY NOT WANT TO DO THAT, OR ELSE THESE WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES, YOU WOULD EXPECT YOUR OFFICERS TO TELL ANOTHER OFFICER THE SAME THING.
UM, WHAT WAS IT THE, THE TERM THREAT WAS USED? WHAT DID HE, WHAT IS IT THAT HE THREATENED? WELL, COUNSEL FOR A FIRE CAPTAIN TO SEND A FIRE CHIEF INFORMATION ON FALSE ACCUSATIONS, I WILL ENSURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW HOW THIS ADMINISTRATION IS TAKEN CARE OF.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM IN ITSELF RIGHT THERE.
THAT YOU'RE GONNA CALL ME OUT AND TELL ME THAT I'M COVERING UP SOMETHING WITHIN MY DEPARTMENT.
DID, BUT IS HE SAYING THAT? DID HE SAY THAT YOU COVERED SOMETHING UP RIGHT THERE.
I WILL ENSURE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE KNOW HOW THE ADMINISTRATIONS TAKEN CARE OF.
LIKE HE'S TELLING ME WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.
EXPOSE ME FOR WHAT? AGAIN, COUNSEL, WE TRIED HAVING THIS CONVERSATION DURING AN INTERROGATION.
WHAT WAS YOUR INTENTIONS OF THIS? WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION? HE WAS TOLD NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE.
SO THE PERCEIVED THREAT IS THAT HE'S GONNA GO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT? NO, NO, SIR.
THE THREAT IS BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, DISRESPECT, INSUBORDINATE BY HIM MAKING THOSE THREATENING, INSULTING BEHAVIOR TO A SENIOR OFFICER.
IT'S, I MEAN, YOU COULD, IT IT IS, IT IS.
IT'S NOT LIKE HE'S GONNA THREATEN TO COME DO SOMETHING TO ME.
UM, BUT HIM DOING SOMETHING ELSE IS JUST LETTING OTHER, LETTING PEOPLE KNOW OF SOMETHING THAT, AGAIN, COUNSEL WAS FALSE INFORMATION.
AND WHEN, WHEN WAS TOLD, SET UP A MEETING, COME SEE ME, NOTHING EVER HAPPENED.
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE LETTERS.
IT'S NOT MENTIONED, BUT IT WOULD HAPPEN.
UH, HOW DID YOU DO THAT? VIA TEXT, VIA EMAIL TOLD BY HIS UNION PEOPLE OR NOT, MAYBE NOT THE UNION PRESIDENT, BUT TIMES BECAUSE WE REACHED OUT TO PEOPLE.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR YOU TOLD THAT TO? NO, SIR.
SO YOU, AS WE ARE HERE TODAY, YOU DON'T REMEMBER ANYBODY THAT WOULD'VE BEEN GIVEN THAT MESSAGE TO TELL HANK? I DO NOT.
BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT STOP THE POINT OF THE TEXT MESSAGE THAT WAS SENT WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF HOW IT WAS MEANT.
SO HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN CHIEF? UH, A LITTLE, ALMOST A YEAR AND NINE MONTHS.
AND IN YOUR TENURE AS CHIEF, HAVE YOU CHANGED ANY OF THE RULES? YES, SIR, WE HAVE.
AND TELL ME ABOUT YOUR, WHAT PROCESS DO YOU GO THROUGH TO CHANGE THOSE RULES? IF WE CHANGE A RULE, IT'S POSTED, UH, FOR 10 DAYS, I BELIEVE IT IS, BEFORE IT GOES INTO EFFECT.
SO YOU AND YOUR STAFF, I'M ASSUMING, GET TOGETHER, HAVE A MEETING OF THE MINDS ON HOW YOU WANT A CERTAIN RULE TO BE CHANGED.
YOU THEN DRAFT THAT RULE AND THEN YOU POST IT ON A BOARD AND YOU SAY ON A BOARD, IS THAT AT EVERY STATION, EVERY FIREHOUSE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT POSTED ON THEIR BULLETED BOARD OR AT THE STATION SOMEWHERE? YES, SIR.
AND AFTER 10 DAYS HAS PASSED, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE 10 DAYS? TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE RULE BEFORE IT GOES INTO EFFECT.
AND THEN AFTER 10 DAYS IT GOES INTO EFFECT? YES, SIR.
SO THERE'S NOTHING IN BETWEEN THAT OCCURS BETWEEN YOU
[01:25:01]
FORMULATE THE RULE AND THEN YOU POST THE RULE AND THEN IT GOES INTO EFFECT 10 DAYS LATER.ONLY UNLESS IT'S A, A, UM, A DRASTIC IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, BUT THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
AND YOU'VE CHANGED NUMEROUS RULES? WE'VE CHANGED SOME RULES, YES, SIR.
UM, AND AS YOU APPRECIATE IT, IS THIS HOW OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE ENACTED RULES? WELL, AS FAR AS MY KNOWLEDGE, YEAH.
SO JUST TO REITERATE, YOUR ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS THE ADMINISTRATIONS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF IN THE PAST, AND HOW, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT? UH, AROUND 22 YEARS.
SO YOU'VE BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR 22 YEARS, AND EVEN PRIOR TO YOUR ADMINISTRATION AND THE 21 PLUS YEARS, UH, BEFORE YOU BECAME CHIEF, IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, IN ORDER THAT THE DEPARTMENT, WHEN THEY'VE CHANGED RULES, THAT ALL THEY'VE DONE IS POST IT MM-HMM.
UM, DO Y'ALL KEEP A HARD COPY OF ANY OF THE RULES AT THE STATION CURRENTLY AT THIS TIME? NO, SIR.
AND BECAUSE I KNEW THIS CAME UP, WE HAD A HEARING A FEW MONTHS AGO AND THAT WAS AN ISSUE.
AND AT THAT POINT IN, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A HARD COPY YES, SIR.
BUT NOW IT'S ALL JUST COMPUTER.
UM, SO WE'VE STIPULATED TO RULE 4.3, WHICH IS THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS SECTION 4.3, AND THAT ONE.
AND LET ME POINT OUT THAT THAT WAS ADDED IN BY THE REQUEST, UH, OF MR.
AND 4.3, UM, LOOKING AT YOUR EXHIBITS WOULD READ, AND I'LL JUST SHOW THIS TO YOU.
DO YOU MIND IF I APPROACH, I JUST REMEMBERED TALKING TO MIKE.
THIS IS THE RULE 4.3 THAT WE STIPULATED TO YOU MIND READING THAT TO THE BOARD.
SECTION 4.3 SUSPENSION, ANY OFFICER MAY RELIEVE OF HIS DUTIES, ANY MEMBER SUBORDINATE TO HIM FOR AN INFRACTION OF ANY RULE OR REGULATION, ANY INFRACTION THAT LEADS UP TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION WILL ADHERE TO THE FIREFIGHTER BILL OF RIGHTS.
NO MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PLEAD IGNORANCE OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
NOW I'M GONNA SHOW YOU WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY RULE 4.3.
CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THIS, I JUST PUT THE COVER PAGE ON THERE? YES, SIR.
AND THEN THE, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THIS SECTION 4.3? YES.
SO THIS SECTION 4.3, CAN I GO BACK A COUPLE? YEAH.
WELL, CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT IS, OR AT LEAST ONE TIME WAS SECTION 4.3? YEAH.
SO IT GOES BACK TO, THIS WAS ADOPTED, WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING ME JANUARY THE EIGHTH OF 1997.
AND I'D LIKE TO, HE'S IDENTIFYING, I'D LIKE TO OFFER FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCE OF THE RULE FROM 1997.
I THINK WE SHOULD A LITTLE FOUNDATION, WE GET TO, WE'LL GET TO THE RELEVANCE OF IT.
IF I MAY, UM, 'CAUSE HE'S A, HE'S LAID FOUNDATION PART, I'D LIKE TO OFFER FILE, INTRODUCE THESE INTO EVIDENCE SO THE BOARD CAN EACH HAVE COPY OF THE EXHIBIT.
SO AREN'T THESE ALREADY IN EVIDENCE? SO WHEN WE STIPULATED 4.3, I'VE GOT A MANUAL.
I'VE GOT A MANUAL THAT HAS A WHOLE DIFFERENT 4.3 OR AT LEAST A GUTTED FOUR.
AND THEN WHAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS A COMPLETELY GUTTED SECTION 4.3, WHICH IS WHAT GOT INTRODUCED.
SO NOW I'M INTRODUCING WHAT WAS IN THE MANUAL, UM, THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT MANUAL THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY THE PRIOR ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTED THE UNION, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE PRIOR ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTED UNION.
SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE INTO EVAN.
AND YEAH, LET ME EXPAND MY OBJECTION TO SAY WE STIPULATED TO 4.3.
IF HE DIDN'T, IF HE THOUGHT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, ALL HE HAD TO DO IS CALL ME AND ONE AND ASKED WHERE IT WAS.
BUT, UH, I SENT YOU AN EMAIL, MORNING COMMENTS,
[01:30:02]
YOU SENT ME AN EMAIL ASKING FOR A COPY OF THE BOOK AND ON FRIDAY, AND YOU SHOWED UP TODAY AND, AND GAVE A COPY OUT OF THIS.BUT CERTAINLY I WAS NOT ON NOTIFICATION THAT THAT WAS THE ISSUE SINCE WE HAD IN FACT STIPULATED TO IT.
ONCE AGAIN, I GOT THIS FRIDAY MORNING, THE 4.3 THAT YOU GAVE ME, I IMMEDIATELY EMAILED YOU BACK ASKING, GIVE ME A COPY IF YOU GOT SOME UPDATED MANUAL.
DIDN'T HAVE IT THIS MORNING IN MY EMAIL BOX EITHER WHEN I CAME HERE.
SO THIS IS WHAT IT WAS IN THE MANUAL.
AND YOU'LL GET WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IF GIVEN A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY.
PROBLEM IS, IT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS TO, TO WHAT MANUAL TALKING ABOUT WHERE DID YOU GET THAT MANUAL FROM? THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THAT FOR YOU TO INTRODUCE.
THERE'S NO FOUNDATION BEEN LAID.
ACTUALLY, THE CHIEF JUST LAID A FOUNDATION SAYING, YEAH, THIS IS FROM 1997.
THIS IS THE RULE THAT WAS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MANUAL.
HE'S ALREADY SAID THAT THAT'S TRUE.
NOT THAT IT WAS A CURRENT RULE THOUGH.
RIGHT NOW PURPOSES, THIS WAS THE RULE OF 1997.
THEN WE'LL GET TO THAT ARGUMENT.
I'D, I'D ALLOW IT AND JUST SEE WHERE THIS GOES TO US.
LET'S WAIT TILL YOU GET TO, TO THE MICROPHONE.
NOT MOVING AS FAST AS USED TO.
CHIEF, READ THAT, UM, THAT RULE PLEASE.
DID YOU TAKE IT WITH ME? OH, DID I GIVE YOU THE COPY OF THE THAT'S WHY I HAD THE EXTRA COPY.
SECTION 4.3 SUSPENSION, ANY OFFICER MAY RELIEVE OF DUTIES ANY MEMBER SUBORDINATE TO HIM FOR AN INFRACTION OF ANY RULE OR REGULATION.
A HEARING WILL BE CALLED BY THE FIRE CHIEF AND WRITTEN NOTICE OF A HEARING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS WITNESSES WITHIN 48 HOURS PRIOR TO HIS SCHEDULED HEARING OR MEETING.
AT THIS TIME, AT THIS HEARING, THERE SHALL BE A FULL WRITTEN REPORT ALONG WITH THE OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEE, AND A NINE MEMBER DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD AS APPOINTED BY THE FIRE CHIEF.
THE EMPLOYEE HAS A RIGHT TO PICK ANYONE WHOM HE DESIRES TO SIT IN DURING THE HEARING.
AFTER THE HEARING HAS BEEN HELD, THE NINE DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD WILL FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION IN WRITING TO THE FIRE CHIEF.
THE FIRE CHIEF SHALL THEN CALL AN EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYEE'S REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD HE SO DESIRE AND THE OFFICERS INVOLVED AT WHICH TIME DISCIPLINARY ACTION IF RECOMMENDED SHALL BE RENDERED.
NO MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PLEAD IGNORANCE OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE A NON-MEMBER DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD FOR THIS MATTER, DID YOU? NO, SIR.
AND I GET THAT YOU STATED THIS IS THE RULE FROM 1997, CORRECT? CORRECT, SIR.
AND AS YOUR TESTIMONY, PREVIOUS TESTIMONY WAS THE WAY YOU'VE CHANGED RULES OR ENACTED RULES AND THE WAY PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS IN YOUR 22 YEARS HAS DONE SO IS TO PROPOSE A RULE, WRITE THE RULE, POST THE RULE FOR 10 DAYS AND THEN IT'S A RULE? YES SIR.
AT ANY TIME DID YOU GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT GETTING THIS APPROVED? YOU ASKING ME MR. KERSHAW, DID I GO IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL? YES, SIR.
AND WELL HOW'S THAT, THAT NOW THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.
WHAT'S THAT? WELL, YOU SAID THAT Y'ALL JUST DEVELOP A RULE AND THEN POST IT FOR 10 DAYS AND IT GOES INTO EFFECT IF I CHANGE A RULE, UHHUH
SO THAT'S THE, AND THAT'S, THIS CAME UP AT THE LAST HEARING, BUT THAT'S THE MANUAL, THE ONE, THE 2017 MANUAL, I'M SORRY, 1997 MANUAL WAS THE ONE THAT WAS IN THE FIREHOUSE.
SO IS THERE NOT A 2021 MANUAL FLOATING AROUND THE FIREHOUSES? THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
BUT AS YOU KNOW, LAST TIME THIS WAS AN ISSUE, THE LAST HEARING WE HAD.
NOW SINCE THEN, WE HAVE RECTIFIED THAT PROBLEM WITHIN THE BATTERY REPORT.
LET ME OBJECT TO THE CONTINUED, UH, MENTIONING OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST HEARING.
UH, IT'S NOT RELEVANT AND IT'S NOT IN EVIDENCE AND I'M SURE THE RECORD IS NOT GONNA BE COMPLETE WITH ALL THOSE REFERENCES.
AND HE WAS NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SAME MANUAL.
HALF OF THE DATES ARE EVEN WRONG OF WHAT HE'S SAYING.
[01:35:01]
THAT OBJECTION.HAVE YOU CHANGED RULE 4.3 DURING YOUR TENURE? NO, SIR.
UM, SO RULE 4.3 AS IT STANDS TODAY, SHOULD READ EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE THAT WE'VE STIPULATED TO, IS THAT RIGHT? WE HAVE SINCE CHANGED OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.
ALRIGHT, CHIEF, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA CLOSE JUST REAL QUICK, JUST TO REITERATE, YOU'VE, YOU RENDERED SUCH THIS DISCIPLINE.
I KNOW WE HAVE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SEVERE, BUT, UM, YOU RENDERED THE DISCIPLINE THAT YOU DID BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, YOU FOUND THAT CAPTAIN WALLACE VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT POLICY PROVISIONS OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WAS PART OF IT.
PARDON? PARDON? SECONDLY, UM, BECAUSE YOU FOUND A VIOLATION OF 33 2500 AS WELL, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THEN THIRDLY, YOU FOUND A VIOLATION OF 33 25 62, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE THREE REASONS ARE WHY YOU RENDERED THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT YOU DID.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
ANY REDIRECT MS. GILL? NOT AT THIS TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, UH, TO THE FIRE CHIEF? NO.
I SUPPOSE WE TAKE A WELLNESS BREAK.
UH, AT THIS TIME WE TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
THE TIME IS NOW ONE THIRTY ONE.
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
MS. DAWN, ARE YOU THERE? I AM.
UH, BEFORE, BEFORE WE, UH, PROCEED, JUST WANT TO CLEAR UP SOMETHING ON THE RECORD, DON, YOU WERE MENTIONING SOMETHING TO ME ABOUT SOMETHING, UH, SOMETHING BEING HANDED.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY THAT.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, I DIDN'T HEAR Y'ALL SAY Y'ALL WERE TAKING A BREAK.
SO I WAS WATCHING AND I SAW SOMEONE WALK UP TO THE BOARD.
I CAN'T SEE THE BOARD ON MY SCREENSHOT.
I CAN'T SEE WHO'S SITTING IN THE BOARD AND HAND IT TO 'EM AND SAY, YEAH, HIS, THIS IS A COPY OF WHAT'S OFF OF SOMETHING.
IT WAS SOMEBODY GIVING INTO EXHIBIT.
SO I SAID, GUYS, COULD Y'ALL TELL ME WHAT AN EXHIBIT IT IS? AND THEN I REALIZED THAT Y'ALL WERE ON A BREAK AND SOMEBODY WAS HANDING THE BOARD MEMBER, UH, SOME COPY OF A RULE OR SOMETHING.
AND I THINK WHAT WHAT WAS HANDED WAS JUST A COPY OF THE CURRENT, UH, RULE OR SO IS A PICTURE OF THE RULES ON A CELL PHONE.
BUT IS THAT RE THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE, THE HEARING? I GUESS I'M, BUT WHO, OKAY.
WHO, WHO TEST WHEN THEY SAY WHO, I DON'T KNOW WHO PULLED 'EM UP ON THEIR TELEPHONE.
IN OTHER WORDS, I'M NOT, CAN'T SEE WHO'S SAYING THAT OR WHO'S OH, RIGHT.
UM, RIGHT NOW THAT'S A FIRE REPRESENTATIVE MIKE MING TALKING AND HE'S JUST SAYING THAT SOMEONE JUST SHOWED 'EM A PICTURE OF THE RULE ON THE, THE CELL PHONE.
AND, AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT THAT WASN'T ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE OR, YOU KNOW, SHOULDN'T BE.
WHATEVER'S ON THE CELL AND I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THEM LOOKING AT IT EITHER.
UM, DON DO, WELL, I GUESS TO MAKE THE RECORD CLEAR, LET'S NOT CONSIDER WHATEVER WE SAW ON THE CELL PHONE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A PART OF THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD.
EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE THERE? YES.
AND I DON'T THINK THE REST OF THE BOARD SAW IT.
UH, DON DID, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS TO CALL? DID NOT HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS TO CALL.
WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE MY RIGHT TO CALL THE CHIEF
[01:40:01]
ON REBUTTAL SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED? GOOD DEAL, MR. KERSHAW? YES SIR.IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, EIGHT 11 MARYLAND STOPS IN BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.
OKAY, HANK, UM, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? A LITTLE OVER 19 YEARS.
AND PRIOR TO YOUR DIS THIS DISCIPLINARY ACTION, WHAT WAS YOUR RANK? CAPTAIN.
AND LET'S GO THROUGH FOR PRIOR TO STARTING AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHERE WERE YOU EMPLOYED? I WAS IN THE MILITARY IN THE MARINES.
HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THE MARINES? FOUR YEARS.
FOUR MONTHS AND TWO DAYS STOP LOSS.
AND DID YOU DO THAT RIGHT AFTER HIGH SCHOOL? YES, SIR.
UPON GRADUATING HIGH SCHOOL? YES SIR.
SO YOU WENT FROM HIGH SCHOOL, WENT FROM HIGH SCHOOL TO THE MARINES AND THEN WHAT? TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? YES, SIR.
AND THE CHIEF HAD ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT UM, YOUR FATHER AND HIS FATHER HAD BEEN FRIENDS OR HAD WORKED TOGETHER, UM, AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.
HIS FATHER TOOK ME ON MY FIRST DAY OF A CALL.
SO YOU'VE BEEN KNOWING THE CHIEF AND HIS AND HIS FATHER FOR QUITE SOME TIME? YES, SIR.
MR. WALLACE, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, UH, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU, SO MAKE SURE, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
UM, WELL TELL ME ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH, UH, CHIEF KIMBALL.
I'VE KNOWN THE KIMBALL FAMILY A LONG TIME.
UM, LIKE I SAID, MY DAD AND HIS DAD WORKED TOGETHER AS A MATTER OF FACT, TALKING ABOUT JOINING THE MARINES.
IT WAS HIM OR IT WAS CHIEF KIMBALL'S FATHER.
AND MY FATHER BOTH SAT ME DOWN AT STATION 12 AND TOLD ME, COME TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND I EXPRESSED TO HIM THAT I HAD A HUNDRED PERCENT DESIRE TO COME TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT I FELT I NEEDED SOMETHING ELSE.
THAT'S WHEN I HAD JOINED THE MILITARY.
AND SO AFTER I DID MY FOUR YEARS, FOUR MONTHS TODAY IN THE MARINES, I TOOK THE FIRST AVAILABLE CIVIL SERVICE TEST TO BECOME A FIREFIGHTER IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
PASSED IT, WENT THROUGH THE RIGOROUS HIRING PROCESS, PASSED EVERYTHING AND WAS GIVEN A JOB, OFFERED A JOB TO BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND SUCCESSFULLY MADE IT THROUGH THE ROOKIE SCHOOL AT THE TIME AND COMPLETED ALL MY FIREFIGHTER TRAINING AND E M T TRAINING DURING ROOKIE SCHOOL.
AND YOU'VE WORKED, YOU WORKED YOUR WAY UP TO BEING A FIRE CAPTAIN, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND WHAT DID YOU HAVE TO DO TO BECOME A FIRE CAPTAIN? WE START OFF AS A FIREFIGHTER AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ROUGHLY NOW, I BELIEVE IT'S NINE, 10 YEARS, TOOK ME ALMOST 10 YEARS.
I MADE A FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR, UH, CLEAN RECORD THROUGHOUT ALL THAT TIME.
I NEVER HAD ANY KIND OF PROBLEMS AS FAR AS WHILE I WAS A FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR.
UM, TO GET BACK TO, TO MAKE DRIVER OUR FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR FROM FIREFIGHTER, YOU HAVE TO PASS A CIVIL SERVICE TEST, PROMOTIONAL EXAM.
AND I WAS ABLE TO PASS THAT TEST AND YOUR NAME GETS PUT ON A LIST AND WHENEVER YOUR NAME COMES AROUND, YOU GET YOUR CHANCE TO BE PROMOTED, WHICH FOR ME WAS RIGHT AT 10 YEARS.
GOT ON THAT ONE, DID MY SIX MONTHS PROBATION, UH, GOT CERTIFIED AS A FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR.
UH, I WAS ON RELIEF SEVERAL YEARS.
FINALLY GOT ASSIGNED, UH, A CHANCE TO BID IN ON THE TRUCK THAT I LIKED.
ENGINE SIX, I STAYED THERE UNTIL I MADE CAPTAIN WAS MAKING CAPTAIN WITH THE SAME PROCESS.
I HAD TO GO AND TAKE THE CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTION EXAM FOR CAPTAIN.
TOOK IT MULTIPLE TIMES, PASSED IT WITH GREAT SCORES EVERY TIME.
UM, WHENEVER MY TURN COME AROUND TO BE PROMOTED TO CAPTAIN, I WAS OFFERED A RANK WITH CAPTAIN BY CHIEF KIMBALL.
AND ONCE I MADE CAPTAIN, I DID MY SIX MONTHS OF, UH, PROBATIONARY PERIOD, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY YOUR SUPERVISORS GO AROUND AND THEY SEE HOW YOU'RE DOING AT YOUR JOB.
AND LIKE CHIEF CAMPBELL STATED, THEY HAD STARTED NEW THINGS.
LIKE THEY, WE HAD A LITTLE BINDER I HAD TO, WITH THINGS I HAD TO DO TO, UH, WHILE I WAS A CAPTAIN.
AND I BELIEVE IT REQUIRES FOR ALL RANKS NOW DURING YOUR CERTIFICATION PERIOD AND CHIEF KIMBALL, ONCE I'VE REACHED MY CERTIFICATION DATE, CHIEF KIMBALL CERTIFIED ME AND MY RANK OF FIRE CAPTAIN.
AND HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN IN THAT RANK?
[01:45:01]
A YEAR AND A COUPLE OF MONTHS.YEAR AND SEVERAL MONTHS NOW OR RIGHT AT A YEAR FROM THE TIME I WAS DEMOTED.
UM, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
THE TEXT MESSAGES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE.
YOU SENT THOSE ME TEXT MESSAGES? YES, SIR.
WHY DID YOU SEND THOSE TEXT MESSAGES? FIRE STATION TALK.
I HEARD, UM, I'M ON RE I WAS ON RELIEF AT THE TIME AND I GO TO A BUNCH OF FIRE STATIONS AND YOU START HEARING TALK OF THIS HAPPENING, THIS HAPPENING.
AND WHENEVER I HEARD ONE ABOUT ADMINISTRATION COVERING UP FOR SOMEBODY, THERE WAS A, A RUMOR ABOUT SOMEBODY IN ADMINISTRATION COVERING UP FOR SOMEBODY.
I TOOK THE SAME ACTIONS THAT I WOULD TAKE IF I HEARD ONE OF MY SUBORDINATES OR ONE OF MY PEERS.
IF THEY HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG, I APPROACHED THEM, I APPROACHED WRONG.
WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? I SHOULD HAVE PHYSICALLY CALLED, UH, CHIEF KIMBLE.
I SHOULD HAVE WENT TO HIS OFFICE.
YOU KNOW, HE COME TO US AFTER HE GOT HIS POSITION TO FIRE CHIEF, WE HAD A DRILL FIELD ROTATION.
EVERY TRUCK WENT OUT THERE, EVERY TRUCK LISTENED TO IT.
YOU KNOW, HE'S STILL MIKE, HE'S UH, HE HAS AN OPEN DOOR POLICY.
I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS HIS PHONE NUMBER.
I SHOULD HAVE WENT TO HIM FACE TO FACE OR VIA PHONE CALL VERSUS A TEXT MESSAGE.
NOW, HAD YOU GONE TO HIM AND DISCUSSED WITH HIM FACE TO FACE, WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD HIM THE SAME THING? YES, SIR.
AND IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR, WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE YOU WERE TRYING TO GET ACROSS? IF I'M HELD TO SUCH HIGH STANDARDS AND MY SUBORDINATES ARE HELD TO SUCH HIGH STANDARDS AND MY SUPERVISORS ARE HELD TO SUCH HIGH STANDARDS, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD HOLD EVERYBODY THAT SAME HIGH STANDARD.
AND IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING BASED ON WHAT YOU WERE HEARING, THAT SOMEONE WAS NOT BEING HELD TO THE PROPER STANDARD? YES, SIR.
AND DID THAT, I MEAN, DID THAT CAUSE YOU TO GET ANGRY? IT'S AGGRAVATING.
IS THAT WHAT CAUSED YOU TO THIS TO MEET TEXT CHIEF CAMPBELL? YES, SIR.
UM, NOW AS FAR AS WHAT YOU WERE RELAYING TO HIM, WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR INTENT? I WOULD HOPE THAT HE WOULD CALL ME IN TO HIS OFFICE OR CALL ME OR DO ANYTHING.
WHENEVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS ARISES AND THEN HE FINDS OUT ABOUT IT, LIKE THAT'S THE SCUTTLEBUTT AND OR THE TALK OF THE FIRE STATION, I THOUGHT HE WOULD ADDRESS ME PERSONALLY.
AND I DID SEND HIM A TEXT ASKING HIM TO LET HIS SECRETARY KNOW ONE DAY THAT ME AND HIM COULD MEET.
I NEVER DID HEAR FROM HER, WHICH THAT'S NOT REFERENCED IN ANY OF Y'ALL STUFF.
SO THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE THREE TEXTS? NO, SIR.
UM, WHEN DID THAT TEXT? I CANNOT REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE.
IT WAS A COUPLE DAYS LATER, I BELIEVE.
JUST LOOK AT IT REAL QUICK AND TELL ME, I MIND IF I SEARCH.
IT WAS 10 ON SUNDAY, MARCH 12TH AT 2:21 PM OKAY.
SO AT THAT POINT IN TIME, UM, HAD YOU BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION? I DO NOT RECALL AT THIS TIME.
WOULD, WELL, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU WERE NOTIFIED OF INVESTIGATION WAS WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE LETTER STATING NOTE OF NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION? YES, SIR.
IN FACT, THAT'S IN THE RECORD ALREADY AND IT'S DATED MARCH 18TH.
SO WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE AS TO WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED? YES SIR.
SO ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU JUST SAW ON YOUR PHONE, YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT YOU'RE UNDER INVESTIGATION WAS SIX DAYS AFTER YOU REACHED OUT TO CHIEF KIMBLE? YES, SIR.
AND IN THAT, IN THAT TEXT MESSAGE, WHY DON'T YOU READ THE TEXT MESSAGE? CAN YOU AND I SIT DOWN AND TALK THIS WEEK? I'LL BE AVAILABLE EVERY DAY AFTER LUNCH.
I REALLY THINK WE COULD SQUASH A LOT OF THIS STUFF IF WE GET ON THE SAME PAGE.
JUST LET MELISSA CALL ME WHEN YOU AREN'T TIED UP AND I'LL BE THERE.
AT THE TIME I WAS HELPING OUT AT L S U WITH THEIR, UM, SOME OF THEIR TRAINING EVOLUTIONS AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CONDUCTING AT L S U.
SO I WAS IN BATON ROUGE EVERY DAY UP UNTIL I WASN'T ALLOWED TO GO ANYMORE.
UM, SO IN THAT TEXT MESSAGES THAT, IN THAT TEXT MESSAGE,
[01:50:01]
WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THAT FACE-TO-FACE? MAN TO MAN WITH THE CHIEF? LIKE IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, SIT DOWN AND TELL ME IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME, UM, DISCUSSION YOU SAW WHEN I WAS QUESTIONING THE CHIEF ABOUT THE MANUAL.
I WAS SHOWING HIM A 1997 MANUAL AND HE MENTIONED A 2021 MANUAL THAT WENT BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL.
TELL ME, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE 1997 MANUAL? YES SIR.
WHERE HAVE YOU SEEN THAT? STATIONS.
WAS THAT THE ONE BEFORE YOU WERE DISCIPLINED? WAS THAT THE ONE, IF THERE WAS A HARD COPY LINE AROUND, THAT WAS THE ONE YOU WOULD SEE? YES, SIR.
THE HARD COPY AND PAPER METHOD, THE CHIEF HAS UPGRADED US AS FAR AS WE GO THROUGH TECHNOLOGY NOW VERSUS HAVING PAPER COPY EVERYTHING I KNOW NOW YOU CAN ACCESS THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH I BELIEVE IT ALL GOT IMPLEMENTED AFTER MY DISCIPLINARY HEARING UHHUH
SO AS FAR AS ACCESSING THEM ONLINE, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT YET.
BUT WHEN THE, AT, DURING MARCH OF MY TIMEFRAME OF THIS DISCIPLINARY ACTION, IT WAS IN A RED BOOK AND ALL STATIONS.
AND WAS IT, WAS THE ONE THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN THE BINDER, WAS THAT THE 1997 MANUAL? YES, SIR.
SO DO YOU THINK YOUR PUNISHMENT DID DISCIPLINARY ACTION RENDERED AGAINST YOU WAS SEVERE? YES, SIR.
WHY? I'VE KNOWN CHIEF KIMBALL A LONG TIME.
UM, YOU KNOW, WITH HIS, OUR TWO FATHERS WORKING TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF COME IN AND, I MEAN WE DID, I DIDN'T WORK AT THE SAME STATION AS HIM AND WE DIDN'T WORK TOGETHER EVERY DAY.
BUT WHEN WE SEE EACH OTHER, WE TALK, GIVE EACH OTHER A HARD TIME, BE FIREMEN.
UM, EVEN RIGHT BEFORE HE MAY CHIEF, WE HAD ALL A KIND OF HAD A GOOD IDEA THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE OUR FIRE CHIEF.
SO IT WAS WE GOING, WE WERE GOING TO, WHICH WE NEVER, WE DIDN'T WET HIM, WE WERE GOING, WE HIM AT A FIRE SCENE BECAUSE IT'D BE THE LAST FIRE SCENE BEFORE HE WAS FIRE CHIEF, YOU KNOW? MM-HMM.
BUT I, THERE WAS NO, I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD BE UPON IN THIS SITUATION WITH CHIEF CAMPBELL WITHOUT HIM FIRST TALKING TO ME FACE TO FACE.
AND AS FAR AS, UM, YOUR INTENTION WITH THOSE TEXTS GOING BACK, WAS IT JUST TO LET HIM KNOW, LIKE PEOPLE ARE TALKING, LIKE THIS IS THE WORD IN THE STATIONS RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S 19 STATIONS, 600, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING LIKE, HEY, I DID, I WENT TO HIM LATER.
KNOW LIKE, THIS IS WHAT'S BEING SAID.
IF IT HAPPENS, WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE ARE HELD TO HIGHER STANDARDS, WE NEED TO HOLD EVERYBODY TO HIGHER STANDARDS.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR MS. GEE.
IF YOU WOULD, UM, LOOK AT EITHER EXHIBITS FOUR OR FIVE WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THE, OF THE TEXT THAT YOU SENT AND HAVE 'EM IN FRONT OF YOU.
OR THE BLOWN UP COPY, EITHER ONE.
THE FIRST THREE, THE, THE FIRST TEXT STARTS OFF BY SAYING PLEASE DON'T RESPOND.
AND WOULDN'T THAT BE CONTRARY TO YOU SAYING YOU WANTED TO TALK IT OUT AND LET HIM KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON? IF SOMEBODY SENT ME A MESSAGE ABOUT SOMETHING I HAD DONE AND TOLD ME DON'T RESPOND, I WOULD APPROACH 'EM.
'CAUSE I WANNA KNOW WHAT I'VE DONE, REGARDLESS OF IF THEY WANTED ME TO OR NOT, I FEEL OBLIGATED TO.
AND UM, I THINK LATER ON IN THE TEXT YOU SAY YOU WANT NOTHING MORE THAN TO EXPOSE IT.
IF IT'S A COVERUP JOB, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED.
BUT BUT YOU'RE TELLING HIM THAT YOUR GOAL IS TO EXPOSE HIM OR WHATEVER HAPPENED.
IF THERE WAS A COVERUP, IT NEEDED TO BE EXPOSED.
BUT THIS IS NOT SOME FRIENDLY NOTE TALKING ABOUT, HEY BUDDY, YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE THE ONE TO EXPOSE IT, CORRECT? IF IT IS, IF IT WOULD'VE BEEN TRUE, YES.
AND IT WAS YOUR GOAL TO DO THAT? FOR SOME OF THEIR REASONS? IT WAS NOT MY GOAL.
IT WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH.
NOW YOU ADMITTED IN YOUR PRETERM THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE
[01:55:01]
NEVER DONE, UH, NEVER SENT THE TEXT, CORRECT? YES.I SHOULD HAVE APPROACHED THE CHIEF FACE-TO-FACE.
YOU ALSO ADMITTED THAT YOU COULD GET FIRED FOR IT.
CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I WAS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS TOLD WOULD HAPPEN TO ME.
AND IN FACT, YOUR MARCH 12TH TEXT CAME AFTER SOMEBODY SAID, HEY, YOU CAN GET FIRED FOR THIS, CAN'T YOU? NO, MA'AM.
UM, NOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS 1997 BOOK.
WHAT IN THAT BOOK LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THE ACTIONS YOU TOOK RIGHT HERE WERE OKAY? I BELIEVE THE BOOK WAS REFERENCED IN THE BOOK THAT I READ WAS IN RE OR THE, THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE RULES WAS THE NINE MEMBER PANEL THAT HAD TO BE ON THE SUSPENSION BOARD.
THAT WAS THE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RULE BOOK.
AND AT THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT WAS IN THE FIRE STATIONS.
AND NOW HOW LONG, DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THE NON-MEMBER PANEL'S BEEN GONE? NO MA'AM.
IT WASN'T IN THE BOOKS AT THE STATION.
DID YOU ASK SOMEBODY WHERE'S THE NINE MEMBER PANEL? I JUST LEARNED ABOUT THE NINE MEMBER PANEL FRIDAY.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE.
SO IT DIDN'T, THE NINE MEMBER PANEL WASN'T SOMETHING YOU WERE COUNTING ON TO JUDGE YOU WHEN ALL THIS HAPPENED, CORRECT? NO.
NOW, YOU HAD SAID THAT AFTER THAT TEXT ON THE 12TH THAT YOU IN FACT WERE READY TO TALK TO HIM, RIGHT? YES.
SO WHEN YOU WENT INTO THE INTERROGATION, WHY, WHY DIDN'T YOU TALK, MA'AM, COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? YOU WENT INTO THE INTERROGATION AT THAT TIME, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THIS.
WHY DIDN'T YOU TALK AND SAY WHAT ALL THIS WAS ABOUT? THE WORD THREAT WAS THROWN OUT THERE AND THAT COULD BE A CRIMINAL ACT.
SO YOU BELIEVE THIS COULD BE CRIMINAL? I WAS SCARED FOR MYSELF, MY JOB AND YES, ACCORDING TO THAT, YES.
AND YOU WERE ADVISED BY YOUR UNION REP NOT TO TALK, CORRECT? YES MA'AM.
UM, WHAT CHANGED YOUR MIND BEFORE THE PRETERM HEARING? WHAT CHANGED MY MIND? ABOUT WHAT? TALKING, BECAUSE YOU WENT INTO THE PRETERM AND YOU HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE CHIEF ABOUT IT.
I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE FIRE CHIEF WOULD TAKE IT THIS FAR.
I THOUGHT ME AND HIM HAD A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT BACK FAR ENOUGH WHENEVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS COME UP, HE WOULD REACH OUT TO ME AND WANT TO KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHAT WAS BEING SAID.
'CAUSE I KNOW HE'S A FACT FINDER.
HE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN IN YOUR PRETERM, WOULD, WOULD YOU BEING HONEST IN YOUR PRETERM WHEN YOU SAID, HEY, I SHOULD HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.
I WOULD'VE, IF ITS, IF A SUBORDINATE DID THIS TO ME, I WOULD UNDERSTAND HOW THEY COULD BE TERMINATED.
WERE YOU BEING HONEST THEN? YES.
NOW, YOU HAD BEEN TALKED TO WHILE YOU WERE FIRE CAPTAIN ALREADY.
CORRECT? ABOUT WHAT ABOUT THIS AUGUST? THE, THE, THE REFERENCE INCIDENT IN 22, LET'S SEE, IT'S REFERENCED IN YOUR LETTER ON PAGE, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EXCHANGE OF WORDS BETWEEN ME AND ANOTHER FIREFIGHTER OR A FIREFIGHTER UP UNDER MY SUPERVISION, RIGHT? YES.
YOU HAD BEEN AND THEY MADE YOU GO TO CLASSES FOR THAT, CORRECT? I HAD TO TAKE SOME ONLINE CLASSES THROUGH THE HUMAN RESOURCES CITY OF BATON ROUGE HUMAN RESOURCES.
AND CHIEF, THE CHIEF SAID IN YOUR PRETERM, SINCE YOU'VE BEEN A CAPTAIN, THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS. AND YOU ADMITTED THAT WAS THE CASE, CORRECT? THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM.
THE AUGUST INCIDENT, AND I'M NOT ON TRIAL FOR THAT.
[02:00:16]
NOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE RANK STRUCTURE, CORRECT? YES MA'AM.AND, AND YOU DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF THESE CONCERNS THROUGH THE RANK STRUCTURE EITHER, DID YOU? I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M STILL, MIKE, I HAVE AN OPEN DOOR POLICY AND EVERYBODY HAS MY PHONE NUMBER.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WHENEVER ALL THE TRUCKS WERE CALLED IN AND WE WERE INTRODUCED TO THE NEW FIRE CHIEF THAT HE IS STILL, MIKE, WE CAN STILL TALK TO HIM.
HE HAS AN OPEN DOOR POLICY AND EVERYBODY HAS HIS PHONE NUMBER.
I'VE HAD HIS PHONE NUMBER FOR 19 YEARS NOW, I GUESS ABOUT FOREVER.
AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU PLED FOR YOUR JOB IN THE PRETERM HEARING? YES.
'CAUSE I'D ALREADY BEEN TOLD I WAS GONNA GET FIRED.
AND, AND THE CHIEF LET YOU KEEP YOUR JOB, CORRECT? YES.
ARE YOU GRATEFUL FOR THAT? YES.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I WELL
JUST 'CAUSE IT WAS REFERENCED THE AUGUST INCIDENT.
UM, IT WAS REPORTED, UH, BUILDING FIRE AT THE LIBRARY ON SCENIC HIGHWAY IN SCOTLANDVILLE.
I WAS A CAPTAIN ON ENGINE 16, WHICH IS FIRE STATION ROSENWALD, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN THE FIRST END.
SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST END TRUCK THERE.
TONES GO OFF, REPORTED HOUSE FIRE OR BUILDING FIRE AT CITY PARIS LIBRARY ON CENIC HIGHWAY.
MYSELF, THE FIREFIGHTER GET ON THE TRUCK AND AFTER I'M DRESSED IN THE TRUCK, THE DRIVER WALKS IN FRONT OF THE TRUCK, GOES IN THE STATION.
NOW GRANTED, THIS IS A REPORTED BUILDING, FIRED A LIBRARY, CHILDREN, A LOT OF PEOPLE.
SO EVERYBODY'S ELEVATION GOES UP, ESPECIALLY ON A FIRE CALL.
A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED GETS EVEN WORSE.
SO WE GET ON THE TRUCK, FINALLY, WE GET ON THE TRUCK, EVERYBODY BEATS ME THROUGH THE CALL.
EVEN F D ONE WAS ON SCENE BEFORE ME.
THAT'S HOW SLOW THIS GUY WAS GETTING ON THE TRUCK.
SO WHEN WE GOT THERE, OF COURSE IN THE FIRE SERVICE, I WAS THE LAST ONE ON SCENE AT A FIRST IN REPORTED FIRE IN MY DISTRICT.
I WAS, I, IT, IT'S NOT REALLY LIKE I WAS DISCIPLINED.
THEY JOKED WITH ME HARD, INCLUDING CHIEF KIMBALL.
SO BY THE TIME THAT ALL THAT GOT DONE, GOT BACK TO THE TRUCK AND I TOLD THE YOUNG GUY THAT WAS DRIVING FOR ME, HE IS LIKE, YOU'LL NEVER WORK OUT WHEN I'M YOUR CAPTAIN.
WELL, HE SAID, YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT.
IT JUST SO HAPPENED CHIEF KIMBALL WAS DRIVING BY.
I SAID, HEY CHIEF, THIS GUY HERE THINKS HE CAN WORK OUT WHENEVER HE WANTS TO.
THE CHIEF STATED HE CAN AS LONG AS YOU AUTHORIZE IT.
SO I GOT BACK TO THE TRUCK AND I TOLD THE YOUNG FIREFIGHTERS LIKE, I'M NOT A MEAN PERSON.
UM, YOU CAN WORK OUT WHEN WE GET BACK, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT IN FULL UNIFORM.
LIKE, LIKE POUND OFFICER WEARING BACK GEAR, T-SHIRT AND UNIFORM PANTS.
NOT SHORTS, NOT TENNIS SHOES, NOT WORKOUT GEAR.
IF YOU WANNA WORK OUT, I'M GONNA ALLOW YOU TO DO IT IN UNIFORM.
HE SAID, YOU CAN'T TELL HIM TO DO THAT.
AND I TOLD HIM, THAT'S YOUR CAPTAIN.
I'M TELLING YOU THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA LET YOU DO IF YOU WANNA WORK OUT WITH ME AS YOUR CAPTAIN.
AND FINALLY I TOLD THE FELLOW TO BE QUIET MULTIPLE TIMES.
I TOLD HIM TO SHUT UP ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE KEPT SAYING TO ME, I'M A GROWN MAN.
AND I HEARD IT SO MANY TIMES, AND I'M NOT GONNA SAY IT, BUT I DID TELL HIM TO SHUT UP REAL, TO BE DISRESPECTED IN THAT MANNER AS A CAPTAIN WAS.
BUT I DIDN'T GO AS I, LIKE, I CALLED THE ASSISTANT CHIEF, WHICH IS SHIFT SUPERVISOR THAT WAS MENTIONED.
I CALLED CHIEF STEELY UP AND I TOLD HIM, I SAID, I NEED SOMEBODY ELSE OVER HERE TO DRIVE FOR ME.
'CAUSE THIS GUY'S NOT GONNA DRIVE FOR ME IF HE CAN'T LISTEN TO ME AND HE CAN'T GET ON THE TRUCK IN TIME.
CHIEF STEELY DID COME, HE CAME TO ME FIRST.
I TOLD HIM, I SAID, I'M NOT EVEN GONNA TELL YOU THE STORY CHIEF, I'M GONNA LET YOU GO TALK TO THAT DUDE.
SO HE GOES AND TALKS TO THAT FELLA, COMES BACK
[02:05:01]
AND HE SAID, LOOK, HE WANTS TO STAY HERE THE NIGHT AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO FOOL WITH HIM.HE'LL GET ON THE TRUCK, MAKE CALLS, HE'LL STAY IN HIS ROOM.
I WAS LIKE, ALL RIGHT CHIEF, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
SO HE'S LIKE, WILL YOU APOLOGIZE TO HIM? I SAID, YES, SIR.
I WALKED OVER THERE AND I EXPRESSED TO THE GUY LIKE, HEY, I'M A NEW CAPTAIN, I'M GETTING USED TO THIS BLAH, BLAH, ON AND ON.
AND I WAS LIKE, MAN, I'M SORRY FOR WHAT HAPPENED.
AND UH, HE TOLD ME HE DIDN'T ACCEPT MY APOLOGY AND DIDN'T WANNA HEAR ANYTHING I HAD TO SAY.
SHE STILL, HE GOT ME A NEW DRIVER TO SHOW UP THAT DAY.
AND THAT'S YOUR POST PRIOR DISCIPLINE? THAT'S MY PRIOR DISCIPLINE.
AND ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN IN A FIRE CAPTAIN'S SHOES KNOWS HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO GET ON THAT TRUCK.
AND THERE'S LIGHTS INVOLVED ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN IN THE SHOES OF A FIRE CAPTAIN.
SO HANK TELL YOU WERE ASKED, UM, THAT, OR, OR IT WAS ALLUDED THAT SOMEONE PROMPTED YOU TO SEND YOUR MARCH 12 TEXT MESSAGE TO THE CHIEFS ASKING FOR A MEETING, THE TEXT MESSAGE THAT CAME SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE INITIAL THREE WHILE WE'RE HERE TODAY.
THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION Y'ALL WERE MAKING OR SOMEBODY MADE.
SO, SO THAT, SO LEMME JUST ASK YOU, THAT'S ASSUMPTION SOMEBODY MADE, DID ANYONE COME TO YOU SAY, NO SIR, YOU NEED TO NO SIR.
CONTACT THE CHIEF AND SMOOTH THIS OUT? NO, SIR.
WAS THAT OF YOUR OWN DOING? YES, SIR.
REACHING OUT TO HIM TO HAVE A MEETING? YES, SIR.
UM, AND AS FAR AS, UM, YOU SAID THE CHIEF MENTIONED AN OPEN DOOR POLICY? YES, SIR.
AND HE MENTIONED YOU ALL HAVE MY CELL NUMBER? YES, SIR.
SO WAS IT YOUR, BASED ON WHAT HE HAD TOLD YOU, UM, DID YOU ASSUME OKAY, I CAN CALL HIM, TEXT HIM, JUST I CAN HAVE A COMMUNICATION WITH HIM AT ANY TIME FOR ANYTHING? YES, SIR.
UM, AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE YOUR TESTIMONY DID, IS IT TRUE THAT THOSE INITIAL TEXT MESSAGES, THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, WERE SENT TO HIM BECAUSE OF A RUMOR YOU WERE HEARING GOING AROUND THE FIREHOUSES? YES, SIR.
AND YOU WANTED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT? YES, SIR.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO, UH, MR. WALLACE? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
IN THE PAST, UM, I ASKED FOR, BARRING YOU FROM GETTING PROMOTED WITHIN TWO YEARS, IS IT WAS A NORMAL FORM OF PUNISHMENT, UH, IN THE PAST, AS FAR AS I KNOW THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I AM THE FIRST PERSON WHO TOOK A DEMOTION UNWILLINGLY AS FAR AS MY KNOWLEDGE GO.
LIKE, ESPECIALLY TO GET A DEMOTION 89 DAYS OFF.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO, UH, MR. WALLACE? ALL RIGHT.
UH, MR. KERSHAW, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES? NO, SIR.
UM, MR. GIT, DO YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL WITNESS? UM, I, I DO BRIEFLY WITH THE CHIEF.
CHIEF, I'M ASKING YOU, UM, IF YOU WILL RESPOND TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE E THE PRIOR EVENT THAT WAS REFERENCED IN YOUR DISCIPLINE LETTER PERTAINING TO THE AUGUST INCIDENT THAT WALLACE JUST SPOKE ON.
WHAT, WHAT HE SAID WAS, WAS FACTUAL.
UM, WHEN HE GOT BACK ON THE TRUCK, THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE OF WORDS, WHICH WAS THE, UH, WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT THAT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THAT SHIFT THAT WAS, UH, WROTE BY HIM AS THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THAT SHIFT.
AND THE INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS DRIVING THE FIRE WAGON THAT DAY, UM, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A EXCHANGE OF WORDS.
AND WHAT WAS TOLD HERE TO DATE, AGAIN, THE ONLY DISCIPLINE THAT WAS RENDERED, WE BROUGHT CAPTAIN WALLACE IN, EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THOSE ACTIONS AND THAT WAY HE PERFORMED AS A FIRE CAPTAIN CANNOT BE DONE.
AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HELPED CAPTAIN WALLACE BY, UH, WE REACHED OUT TO HUMAN RESOURCES AND FOUND SOME ONLINE CLASSES FOR HIM TO ATTEND, AND HE DID SO, AND THAT TURNED THE CERTIFICATES BACK INTO US AND WE MOVED ON HOPING THAT HE EARNED, UNDERSTOOD, MOVING FORWARD AND HAD THE KNOWLEDGE, HOW TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE, HOW TO UNDERSTAND, UH, HOW TO WORK WITH INDIVIDUALS IN TIME OF STRESS.
[02:10:01]
ON.AND THAT WAS THE ONLY, IF YOU WANNA CALL THAT A DISCIPLINE THAT WAS GIVEN ON THAT.
AND AGAIN, DID YOU CONSIDER THAT AS A, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY YOU GAVE HIM, UH, SO THAT THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPENED? CORRECT.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO MOVE FORWARD IN HIS CAREER IN THE BAT FIRE DEPARTMENT.
BOARD MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF? YES, SIR.
CHIEF, I POSED A QUESTION TO YOU.
WAS IT NORMAL TO BORROW A PERSON FROM GETTING PROMOTED ONCE THEY GET DEMOTED IN THE PAST? SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, SIR.
I, I BELIEVE PART OF THE PUNISHMENT WAS BARRING HIM FROM GETTING RE PROMOTED AGAIN FOR TWO YEARS.
IS THAT NORMAL? IN THE PAST, THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION, UM, OF THIS CALIBER.
AGAIN, SIR, AS AS YOU AND LAW ENFORCEMENT UNDERSTAND, UH, WE'RE TRYING TO SET A STANDARD AND AS A SUPERVISOR, UH, HOW YOU PERFORM IS HOW THE MEN AND WOMEN BELOW YOU WILL PERFORM, AND WE'RE TRYING TO SET THAT STANDARD HIGH IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, THAT'S JUST ONE CHIEF.
WHY DID YOU CHOOSE BOTH THE SUSPENSION AND THE DEMOTION? SO, FOR TWO REASONS, DOCTOR ONE, THE DEMOTION WAS BECAUSE HE HAS SHOWN THAT HE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING A FIRE CAPTAIN.
HE ADMITTED THAT HIS ACTIONS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
THE 89 DAYS WAS FOR THE WAY THAT HE APPROACHED ME AS A FIRE CHIEF OF THE BATON RIDGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ANY CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM, UH, MR. GI, MS. GITT AND, UH, MR. KERSHAW? YEAH.
BRIEF, BRIEF COMMENTS IF Y'ALL WILL ALLOW.
UM, DO Y'ALL WANNA GO FORTH WITH 'EM NOW OR, YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO 'EM.
ONE, WHILE WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE FACTS, THEY, THEY'RE PRETTY CLEAR AS TO THE THREE TEXTS THAT LED TO THE DISCIPLINE.
UM, AS YOU ARE AWARE, ONCE THERE MAY BE DISCIPLINE, THE CHIEF IS REQUIRED TO SEND A NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION AND A NOTICE OF INTERROGATION BEFORE HE CAN TALK TO THE OFFICER.
SO AT THE POINT IN TIME, THE TEXTS WERE SENT, UH, THAT HAD GONE INTO EFFECT.
UH, IF IN FACT THERE HAD BEEN A DISCUSSION AT THE INTERROGATION, PERHAPS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, AN EARLIER ATTEMPT TO RE TO RESOLVE THE MATTER.
HOWEVER, THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED IN THIS CLEARLY WARRANT TERMINATION.
YOU HAVE INSUBORDINATION, YOU HAVE THREATS, YOU HAVE FAILURE TO COOPERATE.
AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE CREDIBILITY OF SOMEONE WHO'S SAYING NOW.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO LET HIM KNOW VERSUS SOMEONE AT THE TIME STATING THAT HE IN FACT WAS GONNA EXPOSE HIM AND LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT SOMETHING TERRIBLE WAS GOING ON.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE CHIEF IS PUT IN, IN A POSITION WHERE HE HAS TO DECIDE WHAT IS THE BEST THING TO DO.
FORTUNATELY, AT THE PRETERM HEARING, HE FINALLY TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS AND SAID, I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE NEVER DONE IT.
I KNOW I WOULDN'T WANT MY SUBORDINATE DOING IT.
I UNDERSTAND I COULD GET FIRED, BUT I HAVE TO PLEASE, PLEASE HAVE MY JOB.
AND YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE POINT BEHIND DISCIPLINE IS TRYING TO CHANGE SOMEBODY'S BEHAVIOR.
WE FIRE PEOPLE WHEN WE SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'VE GIVEN IT EVERY CHANCE I CAN AND THE BEHAVIOR ISN'T GONNA CHANGE.
SO THERE WAS SOME GLIMMER OF HOPE THAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD CHANGE.
[02:15:01]
HOWEVER, THE CHIEF HAD TO CONTEND WITH HOW TO SAVE HIS JOB, BUT YET HOW TO NOT HARM THE SERVICE.THE CHIEF HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS NOT CAPABLE AT THIS TIME TO BE A FIRE CAPTAIN.
UH, AS THOSE TESTS GO, IF YOU DEMOTE DOWN, YOU TAKE THE NEXT TEST AND YOU PROMOTE RIGHT BACK UP.
SO THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING IS TO NOT STEP BACK UP FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CHIEF WANTS TO SAVE HIS JOB.
SO WHAT THE CHIEF DID WAS THE CHIEF HAD MERCY, THE CHIEF DID NOT FIRE HIM.
THE CHIEF FIGURED OUT A WAY TO SERVE BOTH INTERESTS IN WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE, LET HIM KEEP HIS JOB TO GIVE HIM THE MOST SEVERE DISCIPLINE HE COULD, THE 89 DAYS SHORT DETERMINATION AND ALSO PRESERVE THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE, BUT NOT ALLOWING HIM TO BECOME A CAPTAIN, WHICH COULD HARM THE ENTIRE SERVICE.
UH, THE CHIEF SHOWED MERCY, AND I HOPE THAT WE LOOKED FOR MANAGERS AND CHIEFS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT WILL TO TRY TO SAVE THE EMPLOYEE THAT THEY CAN.
AND NOW YOU GOT THE TOUGH JOB.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WHAT WAS THE CHIEF DOING THE RIGHT THING? AND I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT HE WAS, THIS WAS EVERYTHING SHORT OF TERMINATION BECAUSE PERHAPS TERMINATION WAS JUSTIFIED, BUT THE CHIEF WANTED TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE HIS CAREER.
AND SO WE'D ASK YOU NOW AS THE BOARD TO SUPPORT THAT, TO SUPPORT THE CHIEF'S ACTIONS, TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT HE WON'T TOLERATE, CLEAR ON HIS ACTIONS, BUT YET BE ABLE TO SHOW MERCY WHEN HE CAN DETERMINE HE CAN DO IT IN APPROPRIATE MANNER AND NOT REDUCE THE PENALTY BECAUSE THIS WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
SO WE'D ASK THAT YOU SUSTAIN THE CHIEF'S ACTIONS.
SO AS THE CHIEF TESTIFIED, AS THE CHIEF TESTIFIED, THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT REASONS WHY HE RENDERED OR WHY HE GAVE THE DISCIPLINE THAT HE DID.
THE FIRST IS THAT HE FOUND THAT CAPTAIN WALLACE, THE VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT POLICIES OF THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THE FIRST ONE OF WHICH IN THE EXHIBITS AND IN FACT EXHIBIT FOUR, UM, WELL THAT'S A PREDETERMINATION.
AND IN THE TERMINATION NOTICE ONE OF THE POLICIES IS SECTION 1.7, RESPECTIVE RANK.
I KEPT TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND THIS.
WHY ARE THERE TWO DIFFERENT RESPECTIVE RANKS AND WHY IS HE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING BOTH OF THEM? THEN I GET IT.
SECTION 1.7 IN ALL OFFICIAL RELATIONS WITH SUBORDINATES OFFICERS SHALL MAINTAIN A PROPER RESERVE AND AFFECT THE COURTESY AND RESPECT THEIR RANK DEMANDS.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THE FIRE CHIEF IS NOT A SUBORDINATE TO A FIRE CAPTAIN.
IN FACT, THE CHIEF'S TESTIMONY IS THAT HE'S NOT A SUBORDINATE.
UM, AND THAT THIS, THAT CAPTAIN WALLACE WAS HIS SUBORDINATE.
SO IF THAT WAS THE REASON, IF THESE TEXT MESSAGES TO HIM WERE THE REASON WHY HE FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED SECTION 1.7, THAT, THAT YOU CAN'T UPHOLD THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY.
HE'S NOT A, HE IS NOT A SUBORDINATE OF HIS, THEREFORE THAT SECTION DOES NOT APPLY.
IF THEY'RE REFERRING TO THIS AUGUST INCIDENT, WELL THEN THAT'S DOUBLE DIPPING.
HE'S ALREADY RECEIVED, HE'S ALREADY RECEIVED DISCIPLINE OR HE'S BEEN COUNSELED AND HE WAS MADE TO DO A CLASS.
THAT IS, UH, IN VIOLATION, UH, OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
SO, WHICH IS IT? EITHER WAY, IT MANDATES A AT, AT A MINIMUM OF REMAND BACK TO DETERMINE WHAT HE'S GUILTY OF AND WHAT THE DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE.
BUT YOU'VE HEARD, HE, HE, HE SAID BECAUSE OF VIOLATIONS OF ALL THREE SECTIONS, 1.7 BEING ONE OF THEM, THEN THAT'S WHY HE DETERMINED THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION HE TOOK WAS CORRECT.
SECONDLY, HE STATED THAT THE THIRD REASON WHY HE RENDERED THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION HE DID
[02:20:02]
WAS THE VIOLATION.AND YOU LOOK IN THE TERMINATION, THE, SORRY, THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION, WHICH IS I BELIEVE NUMBER FIVE.
HE STATES THAT ALSO, AND HE TESTIFIED ALSO BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATION OF LOUISIANA, OHIO, STATUTE 33 25 62.
IN OTHER WORDS, INVOKING HIS RIGHT TO IF, IF HE'S, UH, REASONABLY THINKS THAT UM, HE'S ADMITTING TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND IS LED.
THEN HE SAID ON, ON ADVICE BECAUSE OF THESE, THIS WORD THREAT WAS BEING THROWN OUT THERE.
HE SAID, LOOK, I'M NOT, I DON'T WANT TO TALK RIGHT NOW.
HE SAID, I'M NOT TALKING RIGHT NOW.
SO HE INVOKES HIS RIGHT TO DO SO.
BUT FOR THE CHIEF TO RELY ON THAT IS A VIOLATION.
IT'S ALSO A VIOLATION OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
'CAUSE LOOK AT, LOOK AT HIS PRE-DETERMINATION NOTICE.
SO BEFORE HE GOES TO THE HEARING, HE GETS A PREDETERMINATION NOTICE.
IF YOU LOOK ON THE SECOND PAGE, THEREFORE YOU ALLEGE THAT YOU ARE ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION OF LA OR L R S 33 2500.
ALSO IN VIOLATION OF BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS, 1.7, 4.53, 4.54.
GUESS WHAT? IT LEAVES OUT, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT 33 25 62.
AND AS Y'ALL KNOW, I MAY NOTICE ARGUMENTS BEFORE, YOU NEED TO BE TOLD WHAT YOU'RE BEING, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO YOUR SUSPENSION HEARING OR PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING.
YOU NEED TO BE TOLD WHAT IT IS THAT YOU NEED TO DEFEND AGAINST.
HE'S NOT TELL, HE'S NOT TOLD THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR HIS PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING IN THAT LETTER.
HE'S ONLY TOLD OF THAT IN HIS NOTICE OF SUSPENSION, WHICH BY THEN IS TOO LATE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED.
SO FOR TWO REASONS RIGHT THERE THAT THIS DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.
ONE, FINDING A VIOLATION THAT HE COULDN'T HAVE VIOLATED BECAUSE HE WASN'T DEALING WITH A SUBORDINATE.
AND TWO, A VIOLATION OF A STATUTE THAT'S NOT MENTIONED IN HIS PREDETERMINATION NOTICE.
SO HE'S NOT, HE WASN'T GIVEN PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE OF THAT.
BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE THREE TECH, BECAUSE THEY WERE BEGINNING, HE WAS REFERENCED, THESE ARE THREATS, THESE ARE THREATS.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THE CHIEF DIAL BACK SAID, NO, IT'S A LACK OF RESPECT.
OKAY, WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THESE WERE PORTRAYED AS THREATS AND IF THEY WERE PORTRAYED BY HIS COUNSEL TODAY, YOU KNOW, GOOD.
AND WELL, THEY WERE PORTRAYED THAT WAY WHEN HE WENT IN FOR HIS INTERVIEW AND HIS INVESTIGATION.
AND IN THAT INTERROGATION, HE'S, HE CAN CLAM UP EITHER UNDER NO OBLIGATION IF THEY'RE THROWING OUT THE WORD THREATS AND THAT THOSE, IF THEY'RE DEEMED THREATS, THOSE COULD, THOSE COULD BE A POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES.
SO HE WAS ALLOWED TO DO THAT ANYWAY, HE ADMITTED THAT, YES, I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT TACK.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER TO REACH OUT TO HIM FACE TO FACE OR AT LEAST A PHONE CALL AND DO THIS.
AND IN FACT, HE TRIED TO DO THAT A FEW DAYS LATER, BUT IT WAS TOO LATE.
IT WAS A FEW DAYS AFTER HE SENT THOSE TEXT MESSAGES.
AND BY THEN, I BELIEVE THE WHEELS WERE ALREADY IN MOTION, UH, POTENTIALLY FOR HIM TO, UM, TO GO THROUGH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
BUT WHAT WAS HE, WHAT WAS IT THAT HE'S PUTTING OUT THERE? IF I FOUND OUT THAT THE YOU OR THE ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE SOMETHING IMPROPER, HAS COVERED SOMETHING UP, I'M GONNA TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
SO WHAT, ONCE AGAIN, I STATED IN MY OPENING BY WE, WE ARE SUBJECT TO THAT, THE LAWS THAT TELL US, HEY, YOU CAN GET PUNISHED IF YOU DO THIS.
SO ALL THAT WAS, WAS A NOT JUST ADVISING, HEY, IF THIS OCCURRED, I'M GONNA LET PEOPLE KNOW.
BUT WHAT, WHAT'S HE DOING? HE'S NOT SAYING, I'M GONNA RUN TO THE POLICE OR I'M GONNA, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING TO YOU.
I JUST, I'M GONNA LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
IN FACT, WE HAVE LAWS THAT PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS IF IN FACT, AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED, YEP, IT TURNED OUT TO BE A FALSE RUMOR, BUT IT WAS A RUMOR.
AND HE SAID, LOOK, LOTS OF EVERYBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT IT.
I WANTED THE CHIEF TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO HIM.
AND THEN SO WE COULD DISCUSS IT.
[02:25:03]
HE GOT THE MOST EGREGIOUS PENALTY DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST HIM ASIDE FROM TERMINATION.THERE'S A REASON, AND WE BROUGHT UP THAT RULE, THE PREVIOUS RULE, 4.3 THAT I'VE GIVEN Y'ALL BECAUSE CAME UP AT OUR LAST HEARING.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO ME.
AND SO AT NO TIME WAS HONOR UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IN 2021, THAT SOMEONE ELSE WENT BEFORE THE COUNSEL.
LOOK AT IT, THINK ABOUT WHY IT EXISTS.
THERE'S A NINE PERSON DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD.
WHY WOULD THAT BE SO COOLER HEADS COULD PREVAIL WHENEVER THEY'RE MAKING A DETERMINATION OF WHAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN.
I THINK IT'S APPARENT THIS WAS TAKEN PERSONALLY BY THE CHIEF AND HE RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY.
SOME REASON, HE, UH, WHATEVER HE FELT THREATENED, HOWEVER YOU WANNA SAY IT, BUT HE GOT HIS FEATHER RUFFLED AND HE TOOK THE MOST DRASTIC ACTION HE COULD TAKE 89 DAYS.
ONE MORE DAY IN THE NEXT YEAR, HE GETS TERMINATED.
THIS IS, THIS ISN'T A JOB, THIS IS A CAREER.
HE'S BEEN DOING THIS HIS ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL CAREER FOR, FOR OVER 19 YEARS.
THIS ISN'T JUST A PASSING FANCY THAT HE HAS TO FIGHT FIRES.
THIS WAS HIS CAREER AND IS HIS CAREER AND HE WANTS TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
THE SLIGHTEST LITTLE VIOLATION IN THE NEXT YEAR COULD GET HIM ONE DAY IN A TERMINATION.
AND IT COULD BE JUST A PROCEDURAL STEP, YOU KNOW, LOOK IT SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE HOSE, SOMETHING TO DO WITH OPERATIONS COULD BE SOMETHING VERY MINOR TO GET THAT.
LASTLY, AND I ARGUED IT AT THE BEGINNING, BUT THE DEMOTION WHERE HE SAYS IN THERE THAT HE CANNOT SIT FOR AN EXAM FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
HE DOESN'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.
HE'S TAKEN THAT AUTHORITY FROM YOU.
WHEN HE DOES THAT, ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE, CAN, CAN SIGN OFF ON WHO IT IS THAT'S GONNA SIT FOR THAT TEST.
AND I BELIEVE THIS, THERE WAS A CASE OF LAST YEAR OR A COUPLE YEARS AGO WITH THAT INVOLVED THE POLICE.
I WASN'T INVOLVED WITH IT, BUT I BELIEVE I'VE ALREADY HAD THIS ISSUE PRESENTED TO YOU.
YOU CAN'T DEMOTE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
YOU CAN DEMOTE HIM, BUT THEN HE GOES, HE'LL GO RIGHT BACK IN THE SHUFFLE.
SO IF HE'S SITTING NEXT IN LINE TO BE ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR THE GAME, THAT'S WHERE HE IS.
HE CAN'T, THE CHIEF CANNOT ADD THAT TO THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
AND 33 2500 SAYS THAT IT DOESN'T GIVE HIM A TIMEFRAME ON WHEN HE CAN DEMOTE.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY THEY DO GIVE A TIMEFRAME FOR SUSPENSION BUT NOT THE MOTION.
I WANT YOU TO TAKE THOSE INTO, INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT NEEDS TO BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, HE DID, COULDN'T HAVE VIOLATED 1.7 IN THIS INSTANCE.
AND TWO, HE WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A SUPPOSED VIOLATION OF 33 20 25 62.
BUT JUST ALSO JUST CONSIDER THE SEVERITY OF THE ACTION TAKEN WITH WHAT YOU'RE READING IN THOSE TEXT MESSAGES.
DID THAT WARRANT, HE DIDN'T THREATEN SOME TYPE OF BODILY HARM.
HE DIDN'T THREATEN TO DO ANYTHING PERSONAL TO HIM.
WHAT DID HE THREAT, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT A THREAT, WHAT DID HE SAY HE WOULD DO, BUT I'M JUST GONNA LET PEOPLE KNOW IF I FOUND OUT THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, I'M GONNA LET PEOPLE KNOW THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
MR. UH, KERSHAW, YOU, YOU, YOU MENTIONED 35 62.
CAN YOU TELL ME AGAIN WHAT THAT SAYS? YES, SIR.
UM, JUST SO YOU COULD YES, SIR.
JUST SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO READ IT, SO IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE IN FRONT OF YOU.
LOOK AT, I BELIEVE IT'S EXHIBIT FIVE, WHICH IS ENTITLED THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE, THE SIGNATURE PAGE, UHHUH
OWED TESTIMONY, UHHUH, THAT'S THE STATUTE I'M REFERRING TO IS THE, IS IS ANY OF THOSE ACTIONS COVERED IN ANY OF THE OTHER STATUTES? ARE ANY OF THOSE ACTIONS COVERED ON ANY OF THE OTHER STATUTES THAT ARE CITED? THE NO, SIR.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FAILURE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS DURING INTERROGATION? WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
IT SAYS OATH TESTIMONY, PRODUCTION OF RECORDS AND REFUSAL TO TESTIFY.
SO I'M ASKING ARE THOSE ACTIONS COVERED UNDER ANY OF
[02:30:01]
THE OTHER CITED OF THE REGULATIONS? I'M SORRY.NONE OF THE STATUTES THAT HAVE BEEN CITED IN THAT, IN ANY OF THE LETTERS.
SO NEITHER OF, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, LET'S SEE.
NEITHER OF 35, LET'S SEE, LET'S SEE.
NEITHER OF 33, 2501 0.7, 4.53 AND 4.54.
NONE OF THOSE COVER THOSE ACTIONS.
I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS ON THE REBUTTAL.
THE, THE FIRST IS, UM, THE REFERENCES THAT ARE BEING MADE TO 33 2500, AND THAT THE RIGHT TO DEMOTE FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, IF YOU GO TO 2,500 B, IT, IT SAYS, UNLESS THE CAUSE OR CONDITION JUSTIFIES AN EMPLOYEE BEING PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THE SERVICE, DISCIPLINARY ACTION MAY EXTEND TO SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THE AGGREGATE OF 90 DAYS IN ANY 12 MONTH CONSECUTIVE IN, IN ANY PERIOD OF 12 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS.
REDUCTION IN PAY TO THE RATE PREVAILING FOR THE NEXT SLOWER CLASS REDUCTION OR DEMOTION TO A POSITION OF ANY LOW OF A CLASS.
AND TO THE RATE OF PAY PREVAILING THEREFORE, OR SUCH OTHER LESS DRASTIC ACTION THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND I THINK WE SHOWED YOU CLEARLY THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP HIM ON THE PAYROLL, BUT NOT ALLOW HIM TO BE CAPTAIN, THE CHIEF TOOK THIS ACTION, WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY DRASTIC, BUT WAS ONE STEP BELOW TERMINATION AND SAVED THE EMPLOYEE, BUT ALSO SAVED THE SERVICE.
SO WE WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT OTHER, UH, OTHER THAN, UH, MR. KERSHAW SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THAT, THAT THE LAW OF THE STATUTE ITSELF, UM, CLEARLY REFERENCES OTHER LU OTHER LESS DRASTIC ACTION.
UH, AND THAT'S WHAT WAS TAKEN, UM, AS TO THE, WELL, I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT IN REBUTTAL AND, UH, AND ASKS THAT YOU SUSTAIN THE CHIEF'S ACTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. UH, GIA? MM-HMM.
[Executive Session ( Part 2 of 2 ) ]
WELL, AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK, UH, THAT WE MAKE A MOTION FOR, UH, TO GO INTO, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND IT WILL REQUIRE THREE, TWO THIRDS, UM, AFFIRMATION OF, UM, I MOVE, IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND.THIS TIME, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE YES.
AND THERE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
YOU, YOU WANT A MOTION? YOU WANT TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANNA DO? NO, SIR.
I, I JUST REMEMBER LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, OR THE PAST SEVERAL TIMES IT WAS, THAT'S ON THE, UH, THE ONE THE BOARD RENDERED IS THE DECISION.
YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH THE ROLL CALL.
MR. TIME, I'D LIKE US TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE, AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A MOTION TO END EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I MOVED, WE, UH, COME OUTTA EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MR. PRESIDENT, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
MR. UM, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE P, PLEASE.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ENTER
[10. Hear and Decide Appeal Concerning Thomas H. Wallace ( Part 2 of 2)]
IT BACK INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING.UM, IS IT CALL FOR A MOTION? IS THERE A CALL FOR A MOTION? YES.
[02:35:01]
GOT A CALL FOR TWO MOTIONS.I MOVED THE APPOINTED AUTHORITY, ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND CALLS IN ALL ALLEGATIONS EXCEPT FOR 33 2533 25 62.
AND BATON ROUGE FIRE RULE 1.7 ON 2,500 IS THE 2,500 SECTION TWO.
AND, UH, 33 25 62, THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT HAVE NOTICE.
UH, BATON ROUGE RULE 1.7 DOES NOT APPLY.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? YOU GOTTA GET A SECOND FOR THE MOTION.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? HELLO TO THE BOARD AGAIN.
I'M MIKE PAT OSTRO, BAT IES FIRE, FIRE DEPARTMENT 80 11.
MY AUGUSTON BATONS, LOUISIANA.
UM, NOT CURRENTLY THE UNION PRESIDENT.
UM, THERE HAS BEEN A NEW ONE, BUT, UM, ME AND HIM HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION AND HE DID WANNA MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE THING.
JAKE MORGAN IS A NEW, UH, THE NEW PRESIDENT.
HE IS AT HOME CELEBRATING A NEW BABY BOY.
SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND COMING AND SPEAKING FOR HIM ON HIS BEHALF.
THIS STATEMENT IS COMING DIRECTLY FROM HIM.
I ASKED HIM WHAT COMMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
SO I'M USING HIS WORD FOR WORD AS A TEXT MESSAGE.
I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR SO THAT I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AS NOT THE UNION PRESIDENT AND FOR THE UNION AS IT SITS.
THESE PHONES, I'M SURE MS. DAWN'S SICK OF 'EM TOO.
THE PUNISHMENT HANDED DOWN TO HANK WALLACE'S, UH, FOR ALLEGEDLY THREATENING A SUPERIOR OFFICER IS BASELESS AND UNPRECEDENTED.
THE ALLEGATION THAT THAT A THREAT WAS MADE AGAINST HIM IS IMAGINATIVE AND RIDICULOUS.
THERE WAS NO DEFINITIVE THREAT MADE AGAINST A RANKING OFFICER.
THE PUNISH GIVEN TO HIM WAS MOST CERTAINLY OVER THE TOP AND UNWARRANTED.
HANK WALLACE DESERVES BACK PAY AND HIS RANK RANK BACK AS CAPTAIN IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS THE STATEMENT ON, ON BEHALF OF THE UNION AS IT WENT.
AND I COULD NOT ECHO THAT ANYMORE THAN WHAT IT WAS SAID, UM, TO SOME OF THE STATEMENTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENT ON MY BEHALF AS I WAS THE PRESIDENT.
AND DURING THE HEARING, UM, ON THE, ON THE INTERROGATION, UM, I THINK KYLE HAS ALREADY, UM, THE, THE ATTORNEY HAS ALREADY SAID THAT THE PROBLEM WAS WHEN WE WENT IN THERE, WE WENT IN THERE FOR AN INTERROGATION, UM, FOR A VIOLATION IN THE IN RULES.
AND I BELIEVE IN THE PAPERWORK, IF Y'ALL PULL IT UP, THE WORD ASSAULT IS PUT IN THE ALLEGATION.
HE CHOSE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
IF I ADVISED HIM IN SOMETHING THAT SEEMS WRONG, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT IS A BASIC RIGHT OF AN AMERICAN IS TO NOT INCRIMINATE HIMSELF.
FOR WHICH HE, HE RESPONDED, THE CHIEF RESPONDED IN A RETALIATORY MANNER.
AND I THINK THAT'S SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL FOR THIS ENTIRE THING.
ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL, ANY OTHER COMMENT? ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT HEARING? THEN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
UM, IS THE MOTION THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR CAUSE ON ALL ALLEGATIONS EXCEPT FOR 2,500 SECTION TWO? CORRECT.
AND THEN B R F D ONE, UH, 1.7.
AND I THINK, UH, THE REASONING THAT YOU SET FORTH WAS THAT NOTICE THE FIRST TWO, THERE WAS NO NOTICE.
AND THEN ON THE THIRD IT JUST DIDN'T APPLY TO THE SITUATION.
I, MY SECOND MOTION, WE VOTE, WE VOTE ON FIRST.
SO WE HAVE, UH, A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY PRESS.
GO AHEAD WITH YOUR SECOND MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE DISCIPLINE WAS NOT COUNCILMAN, UH, CONSUMMATED, UH, WITH THE OFFENSE.
AND WE MOVED TO AMEND THE DISCIPLINE TO 45 DAYS.
AND THE MOTION WITH NO ON TIME, BARRING FROM PROMOTION IN THE FUTURE.
I ALSO SAY THAT ALL DAYS IN EXCESS OF 45 DAYS BE REFUNDED BACK TO THE EMPLOYEE
[02:40:01]
A SECOND.SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
ALL WELL, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL AS WELL ON THIS ONE.
UH, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN ON THIS MOTION? NONE AT THIS TIME.
DID THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
ANYBODY WANNA ADJOURN? WE NEED A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.