[1. Call meeting to order.]
[00:00:03]
I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ORDER.
MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL ON MY SECRETARY?
[2. Roll Call]
UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE ROLL CALL.SO, MR. BRADLEY RICKS PRESENT.
MR. MICHAEL LEMON PRESENT? MR. JOHN THOMAS PRESENT? MR. BILL JOHANNESSEN PRESENT.
AND MR. PRESS ROBINSON PRESENT? WE HAVE A QUO? YES, SIR.
IT IS, UH, TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS, ANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, SEE, YOU KNOW, WHY TO PURCHASE THE, UH, PODIUM.
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda.]
WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER THREE AND CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.I UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS THAT WE MAY WANT TO ADD TO THE AGENDA AT THIS TIME.
AND, UH, MR. FLEMING, I MOVE TO ADD, UH, CHIEF, UH, MARK'S REQUEST TO ADD EXAMINATION FOR, UH, FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN, POLICE CADET, CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST ONE, AND ALSO A PROMOTION EXAMINATION FOR CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST TWO.
THAT WOULD, WE WOULD MAKE THAT ITEM NUMBER NINE, UH, NINE ON THE AGENDA FOLLOWING ITEM EIGHT.
AND YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
I YOU HAVE A, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
MOVED BY MR. THOMAS, SECONDED BY MR. FLEMING THAT WE ADD FOR ITEM, UH, NINE, POLICE CADET EXAM, CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST ONE EXAM, AND A PROMOTIONAL EXAM FOR CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST TWO.
DID YOU SAY THIS ONE TOO? AND FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN? YES, SIR.
AND THAT WOULD BE AGENDA ITEM NINE.
ANY OTHER, UH, YEAH, MR. AS ONE PARTY, I WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE JOB DESCRIPTION TO OF MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICER.
THERE'S SOME VERBIAGE TO CHANGE MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICER.
WE'LL MAKE THAT A GENERAL ITEM 10.
AND MR. CHAIR, I THINK WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IS SET THAT MATTER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? OKAY.
BUT AT THIS POINT WE'LL SIMPLY ADD TO THE AGENDA AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THAT ITEM.
WE'LL, WE'LL SET THE PUBLIC HEARING ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADDING THAT TO THE AGENDA.
THE ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA AND NOW WE NEED TO VOTE TO CONSIDER.
I WOULD DO A OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NEW BEFORE WE ACCEPT IT.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON THE ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON THE ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA? SEEING, ON HEARING ON WHO WILL THEN MOVE TO CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.
THAT WILL ADOPT THE ADVISED AGENDA.
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
[4. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from April 22, 2024, regular meeting.]
FOUR, CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL 22ND, 24, WHICH IS A REGULAR MEETING.HOPEFULLY WE ALL HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING ON APRIL 22ND.
MR. THOMAS MOVES THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES ON APRIL 22ND.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
[5. Consider a Motion to Approve Minutes from April 15, 2024, Special Meeting.]
ITEM FIVE.THE SET MOTION TO APPROVEMENT IS FOR APRIL 15TH, WHICH SPECIAL MEETING? AND, UH, WE HAVE THAT ALSO INION AND SHOULD HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
[00:05:01]
TO REVIEW THAT.WE, I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
MR. JO HENDERSON MOVES THAT WE APPROVE THE APRIL 15TH MINUTES TO HAVE A SECOND.
[6. Consider Motion to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms.]
ITEM SIX, CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS. WE DO HAVE PERSONAL ACTION FORMS. I HAVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT.DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY WE HAVE MS. DO ARE THOSE PERSONAL PERSONALITIES? YEAH, I, YEAH, THIS IS, THIS IS FIRE.
YOU HAVEN'T SEEN EITHER
AND THESE ARE THE, THERE WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM.
I BACK, I MOVED TO APPROVE THE PERSONNEL, UH, ACTION FORMS.
[00:10:02]
MR. THOMAS IS MOVING THAT WE APPROVE THE PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.UM, Y'ALL CAN DO, Y'ALL CAN DO 'EM ALL.
THE LE HAS ALREADY REVIEWED THE OTHER ONES.
WHY DON'T WE DO 'EM SEPARATELY? MS. WHAT? OKAY.
MR. FLEMING HAS ALREADY REVIEWED THE PERSONAL ACTION FORM FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO ALL PERSONAL ACTION FORMS, UH, BEING, UH, ASKED TO BE APPROVED.
OPPOSED? THIS NAY PERSONAL ACTION FORMS ARE APPROVED.
[7. Consider Motion to Review/Accept Test Scores.]
ACCEPT TEST SCORES.I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY TEST SCORES.
NO, THAT WAS NOT A TEST SCORE.
IT'S SOMETHING FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE EXAMINER.
[8. Consider a request from Chief Michael Kimble to call for exams:]
CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM CHIEF MICHAEL KIM TO CALL FOR EXAMS BY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER TWO BY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER THREE.DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CALL FOR THE EXAMS PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER TWO AND FIRE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER THREE.
OPPOSES NAY EXAMS ARE, ARE, ARE, UH, CALLED FOR AND WE'LL, WE'LL SCHEDULE THOSE, UM, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
[Additional Item 1]
NINE.THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO, WE ADDED ANY THE POLICE EXAMS? YEAH, I'M TRYING TO SEE WHICH ONES WE ADDED THERE.
WE ADDED TO THE AGENDA GENDER EXAMS FOR POLICE CADET AND CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST ONE.
AND THAT'S A COMPETITIVE, THOSE ARE COMPETITIVE EXAMS. AND THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION FOR CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST TWO.
AND A COMPETITIVE EXAM FOR FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION MOVED BY MR. JO HENDERSON.
THOSE EXAMS HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR ITEM
[Additional Item 2]
NUMBER 10.UM, MR. UH, LEMON, I THINK THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WANTED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO ONE OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION OF MEDICAL TRAINING.
WILL YOU TELL US WHAT THAT IS? AND THEN WE WILL, UH, DECIDE HOW WE WANT TO HANDLE THAT? IT WAS, UH, IT'S CHANGING THE NATURE OF WORK FOR THAT
I'M, I'M THINKING THAT, AND I'LL ADVISE OF ATTORNEY THAT WE NEED TO SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THAT.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UM, PROBABLY A MOTION SHOULD BE THAT WE SCHEDULE A HEARING FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE DO THAT.
SO IF YOU WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADD THE NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE VERBIAGE OF MEDICAL TRAINING OFFICER.
THROUGH, THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I, SECOND.
AND WE'LL HAVE THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
[9. Consider Motion to Approve/Reject Applications/Test Scores for Fire Communications Officer I. ]
ITEM NUMBER 11, CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT APPLICATIONS TEST SCORES[00:15:01]
FOR FIVE.WAIT, CHIEF, THAT WAS FOR FIRE COMMUNICATION.
FIRE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER ONE.
AND WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE NO TEST? NO APPLICANTS.
NO APPLICANTS AND TEST SCORES.
SO WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THAT.
HOW MANY APPLICANTS DO WE HAVE? DO YOU KNOW? OKAY.
WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CARRY THE MOTION.
AND, UM, IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR FIVE COMMUNICATIONS.
THANK YOU CHIEF FOR CORRECTION US ON THAT AGENDA.
[10. Consider Motion to Dismiss appeal of James Naylor, filed by BRFD. a. After arguments, the Board may move to go into Executive Session pursuant to La. R.S. 42:16, La. R.S. 42:17, La. Atty Gen. Op. No. 03-0182 and La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 18-0144 ]
12, CONSIDER A MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL OF JAMES NAER FILED BY THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.UH, BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU MAY RECALL, WE, WE HEARD ARGUMENTS FROM, UH, BRFD AND JAMES NAER, UH, REGARDING THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED, UH, ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ON THOSE ISSUES.
UM, SO I MEAN, HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE, UM, BRIEFS.
I GUESS AT THIS POINT, WHAT WE COULD DO IS ENTERTAIN ANY LAST STATEMENTS FROM THE PARTIES.
UH, AND IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE THEY MAKE A DECISION, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A TIME TO HAVE THAT, THAT CONVERSATION.
MY NAME IS ELENA BRANDS ON BEHALF OF THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I'M HERE FOR, UH, ON BEHALF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED, UH, FOR YOUR, UM, REVIEW THE BRIEF IN REGARDS TO THE NAILER MATTER.
AND SO I JUST WANNA GIVE A SHORT STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS MATTER.
WE DID REVIEW THE LAST CHANCE AGREEMENTS AND MUCH LIKE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS CAN SOMEONE WAIVE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? AND THE ANSWER SHORTLY IS YES, THEY CAN DO SO IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL MATTERS.
ALL RIGHTS CAN BE WAIVED AS LONG AS THEY ARE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, VOLUNTARILY WAIVED SO MUCH LIKE IN A CIVIL CASE, IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT WOULD FOLLOW WITH A CIVIL CASE.
IT IS AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT.
UH, AND THERE WAS A MUTUAL CONSENT TO THE AGREEMENT AND THE PARTIES UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS, UM, THE EMPLOYEE, QUITE FRANKLY, DID NOT ABIDE BY THE LAST CHANCE AGREEMENT.
HE WAS UNDER NO DURESS TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT.
AND HE EVEN WILLINGLY ADMITS IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE DID MISS TWO DAYS OF WORK AS A RESULT OF THE SITUATION THAT OCCURRED TO HIM.
SO WE DO, UH, WANT TO MOVE THE BOARD FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF THIS AS IT'S APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO JURISDICTION ON THE LAST CHANCE AGREEMENT.
AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
AND WE ALSO HAVE MS UH, DUNN GIT FROM THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
HE'S ON, UH, SOMEWHERE IN THE, THIS, YOU KNOW, THE WEB SPACE SOMEWHERE, BUT SHE CAN HEAR US AND SHE CAN PARTICIPATE IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HER.
I'M HOPING I'M NOT SPEAKING TOO LOUD.
UH, BUT I, I'M HERE IF Y'ALL NEED ME TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I GUESS, UH, THE SHORT AND QUICK PART OF IT IS YOUR MIC.
UH, THE WORK AGREEMENT IS VALID.
BUT YOU ADVISE IT WAS THROUGH CRIMINAL COURTS? WELL, NOT NORMALLY THROUGH, THROUGH CIVIL, THROUGH CIVIL COURTS, YES.
BUT I STARTED OUT WITH CRIMINAL COURTS BECAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE WHEN I WAS EXPLAINING IT, THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES WE WOULD LOOK AT ON LAST CHANCE AGREEMENTS AND RIGHTS BEING WAIVED BECAUSE IT'S A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.
AND SO IN CRIMINAL COURTS IT CAN BE WAIVED, BUT DEFINITELY IN CIVIL COURTS AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS CASES ON THAT.
SO CIVIL COURTS, IT ABSOLUTELY CAN BE WAIVED.
IT WAS A DIFFERENCE, BUT WE COULD, WE IT WAS DIFFERENT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NO QUESTIONS, I THINK WE SHOULD, UH, PROVIDE MR. NAOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY LAST COMMENTS BEFORE THE, THE
[00:20:01]
BOARD GOES TO DELIBERATE.SO IN THE CONTRACT THAT I SIGNED, ONCE THE MEETING WAS PAUSED, THEY SAID, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN THIS CONTRACT ELSE YOU WOULD BE TERMINATED.
THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS THAT I HAD.
UM, ALSO, I DID ADMIT THAT I MISSED TWO DAYS, BUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS AWARE OF EVERYTHING.
MY MOTHER CONTINUED TO CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EVERY SINGLE DAY UNTIL SHE WAS ADVISED BY CHIEF NOT TO CALL.
THEY WERE AWARE OF THE SITUATION AND THEY WERE GONNA HANDLE IT.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE, THAT'S WHERE WE STAND AT ON THAT.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS? BOARD MEMBERS? MR. JUDGE, DID YOU UNDERSTAND THE, UH, THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU SIGNED? NO, I DIDN'T.
THE CON THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT.
ONCE I FOUND OUT IT WAS A DRUG AND ALCOHOL CONTRACT, I'VE NEVER FAILED A DRUG AND ALCOHOL TEST BEFORE WITH THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE.
WHAT, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT'S A DRUG AND ALCOHOL CONTRACT? BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY POLICY THAT THEY HAVE IN THE CITY.
THERE IS NO, THIS VIOLATED MY FIFTH AMENDMENT.
THINKING BACK NOW, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WAS UNDER DURES TO SIGN THAT? ABSOLUTELY.
JAMES, ON THE, UH, APRIL 22ND MEETING, YOU HAVE A, YOU HAD A CHANCE TO GET UP AND SPEAK AND, AND DEFEND YOUR, YOUR POSITION.
UM, AND YOU NEVER STATED YOU WERE UNDER DURESS.
YOU DID STATE THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE CONTRACT AT THE TIME.
UM, AND NOW I SEE IN YOUR STATEMENT DATED MAY 3RD THAT YOU'RE CLAIMING YOU WANTED DURESS.
SO CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT FOR ME? WHEN THE CON WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS PRESENTED TO ME, I ONLY HAD TWO OPTIONS.
IT WAS, IT WAS EITHER BE TERMINATED OR SIGN THE CONTRACT.
I SIGNED THE CONTRACT UNDER DURESS.
WHY NOT? WHY NOT TAKE THE TERMINATION AND APPEAL TO THE BOARD? I WANTED TO GET BACK TO WORK AS FAST AS I COULD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
WHAT'S YOUR POLICY ON, UH, TERMINATION TOWARD AWOL? IS IT THREE DAYS, TWO DAYS? WHAT? I'M NOT SURE, BUT I WAS NOT AWOL.
THEY WERE AWARE OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE SITUATION.
SO YOU'RE SAYING JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE IN JAIL, YOU'RE NOT AWOL.
THE FIRST, FIRST I WAS ON VACATION AND THEN THE, THEN THE SHIFT AFTER I MISSED AND THEY WERE AWARE OF EVERYTHING AND THEY STATED NOT TO CALL BACK BECAUSE THEY WERE AWARE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
SO I GUESS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IS THERE A POLICY ABOUT BEING ABLE, YOU WEREN'T AT WORK, EVERYBODY THAT'S NOT DISPUTED.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU BEING WHEREVER YOU WERE, IS THAT A EXCEPTION TO THE AWOL POLICY? I'M NOT SURE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN BE IN A HOSPITAL IN CRITICAL CONDITION AND NOT ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH NO FAMILY AND THAT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED AWOL.
SO IF I, IF, IF I COMMUNICATE EVERYTHING WITH YOU AND YOU STILL CONSIDER I'M AWOL AND YOU TERMINATING ME FOR BEING AWOL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
'CAUSE HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO ME AND I'M IN A COMA OR SOMETHING AND I CANNOT COMMUNICATE ANYTHING, I'M TERMINATED FOR AWOL.
HAS THE ISSUE, UH, BEEN RESOLVED, WHICH ISSUE? THE ISSUE THAT LANDED YOU, UH, THAT MADE YOU AWOL? IT IS STILL BEING WORKED ON.
WHAT'S THE TIMEFRAME FOR THAT TO BE RESOLVED? UM, COULDN'T TELL YOU.
I GO BACK TO COURT ON JULY 25TH.
OUTSIDE OF, UH, THE DURESS ISSUE, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE BRFD COMPLIED WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU SIGNED TO THEIR I FEEL LIKE THEY, THEY COMPLIED WITH THEIR PART OF IT WITH, AS IN IT'S THIS UNDER THE TABLE HANDSHAKE DEAL THAT JUST AS YOU GO ALONG, MAKE THESE RULES IN THE, THAT'S WHAT THEY PUT IN PLACE.
BUT THE ACTUAL POLICY IS A DRUG AND ALCOHOL CONTRACT, DRUG AND ALCOHOL.
I SIGNED THE CONTRACT THAT I REALLY
[00:25:01]
HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT I WAS SIGNING IT AS LONG AS I CAN GET BACK TO WORK FASTER.DID YOU ASK YOUR UNION REP ABOUT IT AT ALL BEFORE YOU SIGNED IT? I WAS ONLY GIVEN TWO OPTIONS.
TERMINATION OR SIGN THE CONTRACT.
DID YOU ASK THE UNION REP ABOUT IT BEFORE? YES, THEY SAID THAT WAS THE BEST INTEREST, BUT I DID NOT.
I MEAN, WHAT ELSE COULD I DO? I MEAN, BUT WAS THAT THE ADVICE THAT THE REP GAVE YOU TO SIGN THE CONTRACT? YEAH.
SO DID YOU ENTER A DRUG REHABILITATION PROGRAM AFTER THE FIRST ARREST? I DID.
AND IT WAS COURT ORDERED THAT THEY SAY I GO TO REHAB AND I COMPLETED THAT
YOU HAVEN'T, YOU DON'T HAVE A, A SECOND WORK AGREEMENT? NO, SIR.
WHAT THEY SAID LAST MEETING, THERE WAS NEVER A SECOND WORK AGREEMENT.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE WORK AGREEMENT AND THAT WAS FROM THE FIRST ARREST AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY SAID IS NOT FACTUAL.
SO IF I'M APPRECIATING IT, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SERIOUSLY, YOUR EXCUSE ME ISSUE WITH THIS IS YOU SIGNED UNDER DURESS.
IS THAT THE MAIN ISSUE OR IS THERE ANOTHER PART OF THIS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO CONSIDER? I DID, I SIGNED UNDER THE ARREST AND ALL OF THE TIMES THAT THEY SAY THAT I WAS AWOL FROM THE PREVIOUS INCIDENTS THAT THEY WERE BRINGING BACK UP, I WAS, AS I SAID BEFORE, IF YOU ARE IN THE HOSPITAL AND YOU CANNOT COMMUNICATE WITH THEM, YOU'RE CONSIDERED AWOL.
BUT THE TIMES THAT THEY WERE BRINGING UP THE PREVIOUS INCIDENTS, I HAD TO TAKE COMP TIME.
AND THEN I WAS TURNED AROUND AND WRITTEN UP FOR BEING AWOL EVEN THOUGH I USED COMP TIME.
SO LET'S PUT THE DURESS SIDE OF IT TO THE SIDE FOR A SECOND.
OUTSIDE OF BEING UNDER DURESS, DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SIGNING? I HAD NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE BEFORE.
I NEVER WAS PLACED UNDER A WORK AGREEMENT BEFORE.
I JUST HEARD ABOUT THE DRUG AND ALCOHOL.
IF YOU FAILED THE DRUG TEST, DID YOU READ IT BEFORE YOU SIGNED IT? I SKIMPED OVER IT, BUT PEOPLE THAT'S BEEN IN THE CITY LONGER THAN I HAVE BEEN, THEY, CORY SHARP BASICALLY WAS LIKE, THIS IS YOUR ONLY, THIS IS KIND OF, THIS IS IT.
THIS IS YOUR ONLY TWO OPTIONS.
EITHER SIGN IT OR BE TERMINATED.
THEN ONCE THAT HAPPENED, THE, THE AWOL INCIDENT WHERE THEY MADE ME TAKE COMP TIME, THEY TRIED TO GIMME 89 DAYS OFF AND I CAN'T AFFORD 89 DAYS OFF.
SO I TOOK 15 TO AVOID FROM COMING HERE.
THE, THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE, YOU STATED IT WAS UNDER DURESS BECAUSE IT WAS EITHER SIGN IT OR BE FIRED.
BUT WOULDN'T THAT ALMOST BE EVERY SCENARIO WHERE YOU'D HAVE TO SIGN A LAST CHANCE AGREEMENT? THAT IT'S EITHER YOU GET PUNISHED OR YOU CONSENT TO THE AGREEMENT.
UM, SO HOW IS THAT DURESS? THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD JUST BE THE GENERAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF SIGNING THE AGREEMENT.
AS FOR DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WAS MANIPULATED INTO SIGNING THE AGREEMENT EVERYBODY THAT HAD SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT AS BEING MANIPULATED? I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
YOU DON'T CONSIDER THAT A A SECOND CHANCE? IT'S A SECOND CHANCE.
BUT EVERYBODY THAT SIGNS THAT IS BEING MANIPULATED, I'M, I'M SIGNING A SECOND CHANCE FOR SOMETHING.
I WASN'T EVEN CON THIS WHOLE PROCESS CAME FROM BEING ARRESTED.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JOB.
IF, IF I WASN'T IN JAIL, I WOULD'VE BEEN AT WORK.
I'VE NEVER MISSED WORK ON MY FREE WILL OR ON MY OWN WILL.
IF THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN, I WOULD'VE BEEN THERE AND THEY WERE AWARE OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE SITUATION.
WHAT, WHAT, UH, ENACTED THIS AGREEMENT? SO YOU SIGNED THIS, THIS AGREEMENT, AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, ON THE 22ND, THERE WAS A, A SECONDARY DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST YOU.
WHAT, WHAT ENACTED THIS, THIS TO, FOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO ENACT THIS, THIS AGREEMENT.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT MADE HIM DO THAT? WHAT MADE THEM DO THAT? RIGHT.
HE COULD JUST DO IT OUT OF THE BLUE.
THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD EVER BEEN IN TROUBLE IN THE CITY.
ANYTHING THAT'S ON PAPER, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD EVER BEEN IN TROUBLE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MADE THEM.
SO MY POINT IS, YEAH, YOU SIGNED THIS WORK AGREEMENT.
[00:30:01]
I MEAN, FOR HIM TO ENACT THAT WORK AGREEMENT, SOMETHING ELSE HAD TO HAPPEN.HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED TO, FOR HIM TO ENACT THAT AGREEMENT.
SECOND ARREST, THIS ARREST THAT I'M, THAT YOU GOING THROUGH NOW.
YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHAT SOMEBODY'S GONNA ALLEGE YOU.
UH, SO HOW MANY ARRESTS DID YOU HAVE? THIS IS THE SECOND ONE.
NOW YOU SAID, I THOUGHT EARLIER THAT YOU HAD NEVER, THAT THIS WAS A DRUG IN ALCOHOL POLICY.
EVERYBODY HAD, YOU NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
BUT YET I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU, UH, ENTERED A DRUG REHAB PROGRAM THAT WAS COURT ORDERED.
BUT WHY WOULD THE COURT ORDER YOU TO DO A DRUG FOUND REHAB PROGRAM? THEY FOUND AN OPEN CONTAINER IN MY, IN MY TRUCK.
NOT SAYING THAT YOU HAD NOT USED IT.
BUT THEY FOUND IT IN YOUR VEHICLE.
IT WAS EMPTY, IT WAS A BOTTLE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS JUST THE BOND STIPULATION THAT THEY MADE ME GO TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHAB.
I THINK THAT ACTUALLY THAT WAS THE BOND STIPULATION TO PRODUCE THE BOND, GO TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHAB.
I WENT THERE, GOT COMPLETED IT.
PRIOR TO THAT, I HADN'T NEVER BEEN IN, INVOLVED IN ANYTHING WITH DRUGS OR ALCOHOL.
NEVER POPPED HOT FOR THE CITY OR ANYTHING.
I HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS.
SO ASSUME AGAIN, PUT THE DURESS AND THE MISTAKE TO THE SIDE, BUT ASSUMING THIS AGREEMENT IS VALID, DO YOU BELIEVE YOU COMPLIED WITH THE AGREEMENT? I COMPLIED WITH THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE.
YOU HAVE TO CALL AND LET THEM KNOW IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA MAKE WORK.
MY MOTHER DID THAT UNTIL THEY SAID DO NOT CALL BACK.
THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT WAS MY ONLY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WAS THROUGH MY MOM.
SO I DID, I FOLLOWED THE POLICY.
THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE POLICY WHEN AFTER THEY WERE AWARE OF THE SITUATION, YOU HAVE TO CALL WHEN YOU MISS A SHIFT.
AND SHE CALLED UNTIL SHE SAID, UNTIL THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OFFICE SAID, DO NOT CALL BACK ANYMORE.
THERE'S A POLICY THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO CALL IF YOU'RE SICK OR ANYTHING.
IF YOU'RE GONNA MISS WORK, YOU HAVE TO CALL AND LET THEM KNOW.
WHAT POLICY IS THAT? I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
WELL, CAN WE GET AN ANSWER TO THAT POLICY QUESTION? I THINK THE CHIEF WANTS TO COME UP ANYWAY.
SO OUR POLICY STATES THAT UPON ARREST, YOU SHALL CALL THE FIRE CHIEF'S OFFICE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THEIR ARREST.
THEN WHY IS HE BEING PUNISHED FOR IT? SO WHAT HE'S BEING PUNISHED FOR MR. PRES, UH, MR. PEREZ, IS THAT WE GO BACK IN TIME AND THERE'S BEEN SOME, SOME STORIES THAT'S KIND OF NOT COME TOGETHER.
THIS STARTED BACK IN 2022 WHEN MR. NADER, UH, WAS UP FOR SOME DISCIPLINE AND WE ENTERED INTO A AGREEMENT THAT HE WOULD STAY IN GOOD FAITH AND CONTINUE COMING TO WORK AND DOING HIS JOB.
AND IF HE HAD ANY FURTHER DISCIPLINE, HE WOULD BE TERMINATED.
OKAY? AS TIME WENT ON, MR. NAYLOR WAS ARRESTED.
WE PUT HIM IN AS, UH, TOOK HIM OFF THE FIRETRUCK 'CAUSE HE COULDN'T WORK IN THAT POSITION, PUT HIM IN COMMUNICATIONS.
HE HAD SOME DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS WHILE HE WAS ON THAT ASSIGNMENT.
I DID NOT FEEL THAT THOSE, AT THAT TIME, THE, THE THINGS HE HAD RECEIVED A DISCIPLINE FOR, RECEIVED A TERMINATION OFFENSE.
SO I DID NOT UPHOLD THAT AGREEMENT AT THAT TIME BECAUSE TRYING TO DO IN GOOD FAITH FOR AN EMPLOYEE THAT IT WASN'T A TERMINATION OFFENSE.
AS TIME WENT ON, HE WAS REARRESTED AGAIN.
AND THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT US TO THIS.
I CANNOT NOT ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL TO CONTINUE TO BE ARRESTED AND NOT ABLE TO COME TO WORK AND RIDE A FIRETRUCK WHEN THAT'S YOUR JOB.
AND THAT'S WHY AT THAT POINT WE DETERMINED THAT I DETERMINED TO MOVE WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT WE ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH.
[00:35:01]
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF BOARD.
ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IF SOMEBODY'S IN THE HOSPITAL AND THEY CAN'T COME TO WORK.
WELL WE HAVE SICK LEAVE FOR THAT.
SO HE HAS SOME TYPE OF LEAVE IN THIS SITUATION.
WHAT LEAVE DO YOU HAVE? I THOUGHT YOU SAID HE HAD COMP COMP TIME.
THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT HE WAS ASSIGNED IN COMMUNICATIONS AND HE WENT SOMEWHERE REPRESENTING THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
MR. UH, BOARD MEMBERS, HE WASN'T DISCIPLINED FOR THAT.
SO THERE'S NO LEAVE HE CAN USE FOR BEING IN JAIL.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
BUT HE COULD HAVE TOOK NO PAY.
YOU COULD STILL TAKE NO PAY IF YOU WERE DEPLOYED ON MILITARY LEAVE.
FOR MILITARY LEAVE AND I, THAT'S UNDER MILITARY LAW.
BUT AT, AT ANY POINT HE COULD HAVE TOOK NO PAY.
BUT THEN I'M DISCIPLINED HIM, SIR, IF HE VOLUNTARILY REQUESTS NO PAY, COULD YOU HAVE GRANTED HIM NO PAY? I WOULD HAVE TO GET SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT ONE.
IS THERE A POLICY THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU'RE IN JAIL, YOU YOU CAN BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE? LIKE IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SAYS THAT IN Y'ALL'S POLICIES? NO, SIR.
BUT THE REASON WE'RE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE IT'S CONTINUING TO HAPPEN WHERE WE'RE NOT AT WORK.
I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE AMOUNT OF DAYS HE SPENT OUTSIDE OF HIS CLASSIFIED POSITION DUE TO THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS THAT HE'S HAD.
IS THERE A, AN OATH THAT A FIREFIGHTER TAKES WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY JOIN THE FIRE SERVICE THAT PRETTY MUCH STATES THAT YOU REPRESENT THE FIRE SERVICE, WHETHER YOU'RE ON DUTY OR OFF DUTY, YOU'RE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD.
UH, IN MY OPINION, THE, THE, THE, THE NEWS REPORTS ARE GONNA BE A LEAD WITH FIREFIGHTER BATON ROUGE FIREFIGHTER.
SO IS THERE AN OATH THAT, THAT YOU GUYS TAKE? WE DO TAKE AN OATH, SIR.
AND WE MAKE SURE WE, OUR FOLKS IN THE DEPARTMENT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU REPRESENT, UH, THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT EVERY SINGLE DAY.
AND YOU ARE CORRECT MR. RICKS, WHEN WHEN SOMETHING UNFORTUNATELY DOES HAPPEN LIKE THIS, IT IS A MEMBER OF, OF PUBLIC SERVICE THAT IS BROUGHT OUT.
SO NOW WHAT HAPPENS IF MR. NAYLOR GOES THROUGH ALL THIS AND IT TURNS OUT HE'S INNOCENT? DOES HE GET TO COME BACK TO BRP, UH, BRFD OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? IF LET'S SAY THIS IS ALL MADE UP AGAINST HIM, HOW DO WE RECTIFY THAT? SO AGAIN, SIR, HE WAS TERMINATED DUE TO THE NUMBER OF TIMES THIS HAS HAPPENED AND HE'S AWOL.
SO IF HE WAS TERMINATED, HE'D HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND AGAIN, WE'VE, THE, THE, THE NUMBER OF TIMES WE HAVE MET WITH MR. NAER, IT SHOWS DUE TO DOCUMENTATION THAT IT'S BEEN PROGRESSIVE.
WE'VE HAD AGREEMENTS WITH MANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS DEPARTMENT.
WITHOUT THESE AGREEMENTS, WE'RE GONNA COME TO Y'ALL EVERY SINGLE TIME.
THE AGREEMENTS WAS, UH, THAT WE DO, THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT.
WE'VE HAD PEOPLE ASK US, HEY, CAN I HAVE SOME MORE TIME? WE'VE ALLOWED THAT.
WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO, TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE CITY, THE DEPARTMENT AND THE EMPLOYEE.
AND WE HAVE SHOWN THAT IN NUMEROUS OCCASIONS I GAVE HIM THAT ADVICE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY ADD SOMETHING? YES MA'AM.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS, UH, INSTANCES OF AWOL ARE RELATED TO THE FIRST CHARGES IN WHICH SOMETHING DID HAPPEN.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS SENTENCED, GIVEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH HE'S ADMITTED TO, TO GO TO DRUG AND AND ALCOHOL REHAB.
THE CHARGES HAVE NOT BEEN DROPPED THUS FAR.
SO WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE TOTALLY, UH, FICTION OR THAT THERE'S NOT SOMETHING, UH, CAUSING THE ARREST.
UH, FURTHERMORE, LEGAL DURESS IS NOT TAKE THIS OR YOU'LL BE TERMINATED.
DURESS HAS TO BE A THREAT OR SOMETHING ILLEGAL.
[00:40:01]
SO IT, IT IS QUITE CLEAR UNDER THE LAW THAT LEGAL DURESS IS NOT SIGNING SOMETHING OR BE TERMINATED.SO HIS DURESS ARGUMENT HAS NO LEGAL MERIT WHATSOEVER.
HIS ARGUMENT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS WASN'T HIS FAULT.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE IN JAIL, YOU CAN BAIL OUT, YOU CAN GET BACK TO WORK.
IT WAS RELATED TO SOMETHING THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY, UH, GIVEN SOME SORT OF CONSEQUENCE FOR.
SO ALL OF THOSE INDICATE THAT HE WAS AWOL.
ON THOSE DAYS, WHEN YOU HAVE VACATION, YOU HAVE TO BE APPROVED OF VACATION.
WE DON'T APPROVE VACATION BECAUSE YOU'RE IN JAIL.
I THINK THE CHIEF WILL TELL YOU THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD NOW.
HE HAD ALREADY TAKEN VACATION FOR A FEW DAYS AND SO THAT WAS HONOR.
SO HE HAD TIME TO BAIL OUT AND GET TO WORK.
THE CONSEQUENCES WERE TOLD TO HIM.
BOTH HE AND THE UNION REP STATED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE AGREEMENT.
GIVEN ALL OF THAT, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF THESE FACTS ARE ALL IN SUPPORT OF UPHOLDING THE AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING IT.
IS THE UNION REP HERE? I I DON'T THINK I SAW HIM.
MR. ELA INDICATES THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT WAS WITH HIM WHEN HE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, ADVISED HIM TO DO SO.
WHY WOULD THE REP DO SO? SO AS A UNION REPRESENTATIVE, WE, UH, WE GO INTO THESE DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS WITH SAID FIREFIGHTER.
I WAS NOT AT THIS MEETING, THIS WAS BEFORE I WAS, UH, AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
BUT THE ELECTED OFFICIAL AT THE TIME TOOK IN THE FACTS AND WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND JUST LAID IT OUT AND SAID, HEY, HERE'S YOUR TWO OPTIONS.
UM, AND THEN THEY READ THE AGREEMENT TOGETHER AND THEN ADVISE THE FIREFIGHTER.
YOUR BEST OPTION IS TO GO INTO A WORK AGREEMENT UNLESS YOU SO FEEL THAT YOU'VE DONE SO WRONG, THEN YOU COULD TAKE A TERMINATION.
AND OF COURSE COME HERE BEFORE YOU GUYS.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? UH, REAL QUICK, I'M LOOKING AT LINE FIVE OF THE AGREEMENT AND IT SAYS THE EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT THE REPRESENTATIVE AND OR ATTORNEY BEFORE SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT.
DID YOU, DID YOU GET WITH AN ATTORNEY JAMES, OR YOU HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY? IT SAYS IT RIGHT HERE TO, TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS AGREEMENT.
WHEN YOU GOT $105,000 BOND, YOU CANNOT, YOU I COULD NOT AFFORD ANOTHER ATTORNEY, BUT I WILL AFTER TODAY.
NOTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD CHIEF? UH, JUST JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR BECAUSE I KNOW WE KIND OF WENT ALL OVER THE PLACE.
SO MR. NAER GETS IN TROUBLE INITIALLY AND HE SIGNS AN AGREEMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
NOW, IN THAT AGREEMENT, HE WAIVES HIS, HIS ABILITY TO APPEAL THAT INCIDENT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND NOW WE'RE SAYING THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S AT ISSUE TODAY.
THE TERM THAT'S AT AT ISSUE IS THAT HE CAN'T WAIVE THE FUTURE DISCIPLINE, IF ANY.
IS THAT FAIR? I WOULD SAY THAT'S FAIR.
THE AGREEMENT WAS TO UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FURTHER DISCIPLINE COULD RESULT IN TERMINATION.
SO HOW DOES THE EMPLOYEE, LET'S SAY THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT A BREACH TAKE MR. NAER OUT OF IT COMPLETELY, BUT LET'S ASSUME THAT THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT A BREACH IN GENERAL.
HOW DOES THE EMPLOYEE GET ANY KIND OF, I GUESS, UM, CLARIFICATION ON THAT? SO YOU SAY AS CHIEF YOU BREACH THE AGREEMENT, THE EMPLOYEE SAYS, I DIDN'T BREACH THE AGREEMENT.
IS THAT JUST SOLELY IN YOUR, I GUESS, DISCRETION AT THAT POINT? SO I THINK I'VE SHOWED THAT IN GOOD FAITH IN THE PAST EXPERIENCE WITH MR. NAER, THAT WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION SURE.
WHERE HE DID NOT RECEIVE A TERMINATION.
AND I'M NOT SPEAKING TO YOUR GOOD FAITH, I'M JUST SAYING IS THAT AUTHORITY SOLELY IN YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE EMPLOYEE BREACHED THE AGREEMENT? I WOULD SAY SO.
BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE, UM, TWO CHOICES.
WE CAN FURTHER DISCUSS IT AMONG OURSELVES.
UH, WE CAN, UM, GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? I'LL MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[00:45:01]
I SECOND YOU.I HAVE A MOTION BY, UH, MR. RICKSON, SECOND BY MR. THOMAS THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION INTO, UH, PURSUANT TO LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 42 16 LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 42 17.
THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NUMBER 0 3 0 1 8 2.
AND LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION NUMBER 18 0 1 4 4.
DO WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? VOTE PLEASE.
WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THERE WILL BE NO MOTIONS MADE, NO VOTES TAKEN.
WE WILL RECONVENE AFTER THE EXECUTIVES.
THE BOARD NOW RETURNS FROM, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION.
LET ME HAVE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, END THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RETURN TO REGULAR SECTION, PLEASE.
I MOVE THAT WE END THE EXECUTIVE SECTION AND MOVE TO, UH, REGULAR MOVE BY MR. THOMAS.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
IT'D BE YES OR NO ON THE MOTION? YES.
THE BOARD IS NOW IN REGULAR SESSION BOARD MEMBERS.
WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? WELL, I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF KIMBALL.
CHIEF, CAN YOU SHOW US ANY POLICY THAT'S, THAT THE BAT FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE THAT SHOW THAT HE ACTUALLY, IN FACT ANY POLICIES SUCH AS, UH, AWOL, UH, WITHIN YOUR POLICY MANUAL.
SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR A POLICY THAT STATES THAT WHEN A PERSON DOES NOT COME TO WORK, HE'S CONSIDERED AWOL.
I WANT TO SEE A POLICY THAT SHOWS, UM, JUSTIFICATION FOR HIS TERMINATION DUE TO HIM BEING AWOL.
CAN YOU, UH, PROVIDE ME TODAY, UH, DID I GET BACK TO MY COMPUTER OVER THERE AND LOOK IT UP? WILL YOU DO THAT, SIR? YES, SIR.
AND, AND CHIEF, THAT THAT CAN INCLUDE, UH, ROLL CALL, THAT DAILY ROLL CALL OR PAYROLL RECORDS, WHATEVER, UH, THAT YOU MAY.
SO I HAVE A, WE HAVE CHOSEN WHERE YOU'RE AWOL WERE ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE.
AND I MEAN, I CAN PROVIDE YOU THE RECORDS WHERE HE WAS ABSENT FROM WORK.
I DON'T HAVE THAT WITH ME 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT HERE TO, I DIDN'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS TODAY 'CAUSE IT WAS NOT THE HEARING OF THE, OF THE INFRACTION.
WE WAS HERE TO DISCUSS THE, THE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL.
SO I APOLOGIZE, NOT HAVING THOSE DOCUMENTS WITH ME RIGHT NOW.
I CAN GET THEM FOR YOU JUST A FEW MINUTES.
JUST WANTED TO SEE YOUR DESCRIPTION ON YOUR AWOL POLICY.
UH, JUST TO ADD TO IT, I THINK WHAT THE, THE BOARD IS TRYING TO FIND IS EVIDENCE THAT HE ACTUALLY BREACHED THE AGREEMENT.
SO HE BREACHES THE AGREEMENT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WARRANTS DI DISCIPLINE AND I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE POLICY IS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
CHIEF, UH, NOT, I KNOW WE CAUGHT YOU KIND OF FLATFOOTED.
DO YOU WANT US TO GIVE YOU LIKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS HERE ALL LONGER? AGAIN, IT'S GONNA TAKE ME A FEW MINUTES.
AGAIN, I WAS NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS 'CAUSE I WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THE PROCESS OF WHAT WE DID.
IT WAS PRETTY MUCH FOR THE APPEAL.
IT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE WAS HERE FOR 15 MINUTES.
I'LL GET IT DONE AS SOON AS I CAN.
THE BOARD'S IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES.
THE BOARD RETURNS TO REGULAR SESSION AFTER, UH, THE RECESS CHIEF? YES.
THANK YOU FOR, UH, GIVING ME THE TIME TO GET THAT INFORMATION FOR Y'ALL.
SO THE REQUEST WAS ASKED TO DO, WE HAVE A POLICY STATING, UH, WHAT THE PROCESS FALLS WITH COMING TO WORK.
RIGHT? SO SECTION 2.1, 0.3, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDUCT.
[00:50:01]
IT STATES ALL FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMBERS MUST BE PUNCTUAL IN ATTENDANCE TO ALL CALLS, REQUIREMENTS OF DUTY AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.WHEN TIME IS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 3.11, IT STATES UNDER WORK SCHEDULE.
THE WORK SCHEDULE WILL BE PER THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND THE FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 5, 5 7.
THE OFFICIAL TIME OR RELIEF SHALL BE 7:00 AM AND THEN WE HAVE THE STATUS GRID, UH, OF THE TIME THAT WE HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR, FOR MR. UH, NAER.
UH, UPON HIS ARREST, HE WAS PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY FOR SIX DAYS, THEN HE WENT ON HIS VACATION AND THEN HE WAS AWOL AFTER THAT, THEN PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
SO WE HAVE THE STATUS GRID IN PLACE ALSO.
MR. IS AM UH, WHAT ABOUT YOUR AWOL POLICY? SO WE DO NOT HAVE A POLICY IN THAT I CAN PROVIDE YOU RIGHT NOW WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL LOOKING, YOU KNOW, SO YOU DON'T HAVE A AWOL POLICY? I'M NOT GONNA TELL YOU.
I DON'T, I HAVE TO GO MORE THAN FURTHER DETAIL TO LOOK AT THAT.
WE HAVE A POLICY ABOUT IF YOU DON'T SHOW UP TO WORK.
HOW MANY DAYS MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, AS THE CHIEF HAS STATED, WE WERE NOT PREPARED FOR A FACTUAL HEARING TODAY.
SO IF Y'ALL WANT US TO LOOK FURTHER, UH, WE WOULD BE GLAD TO DO SO, BUT WE'D ASK THAT IT BE SET AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
UM, BUT THAT'S ALL THAT WE COULD PROVIDE THIS QUICKLY.
MR. THOMAS, IS THAT AGREEABLE? YOU? I BELIEVE MR.
I WAS WONDERING HOW MANY DAYS DO Y'ALL, DOES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE MR. NALA BEING AW WALL? A TOTAL OF THREE, THREE DAYS.
BUT YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AT THIS TIME A POLICY ON THE AW WALL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, CHIEF? OKAY, MR. LEY? YES, SIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, OBJECT THEM TO CONTINUE TO LOOK, BUT ON SECTION 4.44 MEMBERS ARRESTED, ANY MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT WHO WAS ARRESTED SHALL NOTIFY THE FIRE CHIEF OF OPERATIONS WITHIN 24 HOURS.
HE WAS NOT, THEY WERE NOTIFIED, UM, THE FIRE CHIEF AND, AND OR CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIONS MAY SUSPEND OR PLACE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ANY EMPLOYEE ARRESTED FOR ANY CHARGE.
THE FIRE CHIEF SHALL HAVE A DISCRETION TO LEAVE THE EMPLOYEE OR SU ON SUSPENSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE UNTIL SUCH THE EMPLOYEE EITHER EXONERATED OR FOUND GUILTY.
IF SUCH MEMBER IS CONVICTED, WHICH I HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF, THE OFFENSE OR OFFENSES THEY WERE ARRESTED FOR, THE MEMBER MAY BE DISMISSED.
THERE'S NO POLICY OR PROCEDURE THAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE ME BECAUSE OF THE ARREST.
I ALSO, I DIDN'T AGREE TO THE TERMINATION.
IF I WAS, IF I WAS TO BE TERMINATED, I AGREED TO NOT APPEAL THE TERMINATION, WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN WA IN WAIVING MY RIGHTS FOR THE PUBLIC POLICY IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO WAIVE MR. CHAIRMAN ATTORNEY PUBLIC POLICY TO WAIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
IS THAT YOUR ATTORNEY? HAPPY TO.
UH, THE, UH, PROCEDURE THAT HE'S READING, I, I DON'T BELIEVE IS A CURRENT PROCEDURE.
I THINK HE'S READING OUT THE, THE OLD, UM, MANUAL.
MY THING IS WE DON'T HAVE A CURRENT, UM, POLICY IN FRONT OF US THAT WE CAN
[00:55:01]
REVIEW AT THIS TIME.SO I I MOVE I MOTION THAT WE DID, UH, PRO UH, WE COME BACK TO THIS, UH, IN THE FUTURE.
AND, AND, UH, ALL I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MOTION TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL BY MRNE.
I WOULD PREFER ONLY ONE MOTION.
BUT, UH, IF WE DO THIS, CAN WE DO IT AS THE NEXT BOARD MEETING? WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE? IF, IF WE DO WHAT EXACTLY? UM, IF WE ASK FOR THE EVIDENTIARY, FOR THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING FOR OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING.
SO MR. CHAIR, ON, ON THAT ISSUE, I, I GUESS THIS IS HOW I WOULD ADVISE THE BOARD AND KIND OF CLARIFY THINGS.
SO MR. NAER SIGNED AN AGREEMENT SAYING THAT HE WAIVES A FUTURE APPEAL, RIGHT? HE WAS TERMINATED PURSUANT TO THAT AGREEMENT.
THEN HE APPEALED BRFD FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
AND IN THE CIVIL SERVICE CONTEXT, THAT'S A VEHICLE THAT COULD BE ONE OF TWO THINGS OR IT COULD BE MULTIPLE THINGS.
EITHER A NO CAUSE NO RIGHT OF ACTION KIND OF THING.
I I DON'T THINK EITHER OF THOSE APPLY.
I DO THINK IT'S MO MORE LIKE WHAT WE WOULD CALL IN THE CIVIL PRACTICE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
AND WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME, OR WHENEVER YOU FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE SIDE THAT FILES IT HAS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THERE'S NOT ANY GENUINE ISSUE OF OF FACT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET TO, UH, WITH THE POLICY.
ESSENTIALLY SOMETHING CONFIRMING HIS ACTIONS VIOLATED THE POLICY.
UM, WE DID NOT GET THAT TODAY.
AND I'M NOT SAYING IT DOESN'T EXIST, BUT WE DIDN'T GET IT TODAY.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION WOULD PROBABLY BE TO DENY THE MOTION.
AND THEN THE QUESTION NOW WOULD BE, OR THE QUESTION WOULD THEN BE WHAT TO DO NEXT.
AND I THINK IN THAT REGARD, I WOULD PROBABLY POINT TO THE, UH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT WAS FILED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHERE IT KIND OF OUTLINED THE ISSUES THAT THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER.
AND I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT'S AT ISSUE HERE IS SIMPLY WHETHER OR NOT MR. NAYLOR'S CONDUCT ACTUALLY VIOLATED FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, DID HE BREACH THE AGREEMENT? SO TO THE EXTENT THERE'S GONNA BE SOME TYPE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THE FUTURE, IT SHOULD ONLY BE ABOUT DID HE VIOLATE THE POLICY? THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN ANALYSIS OF GOOD FAITH OR, UH, COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFENSE BECAUSE THAT IS, HE SIGNED THAT AWAY.
SO THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY DID HE ACTUALLY BREACH THE AGREEMENT? IF HE DID, THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS.
IF HE DIDN'T, THEN YOU KNOW, HE RETAINS HIS JOB STILL SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT.
BUT, UM, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ADVISE AT THIS POINT.
SO TO DENY THE MOTION IN ONE MOTION AND THEN SET AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE ACTUALLY VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DARA ON WHAT HE JUST OUTLINED FOR US AS THE COURSE OF ACTION? IF NOT, I'LL ACCEPT A MOTION FOR OUR NEXT COURSE OF ACTION.
I MOVE THAT, THAT'D BE THE COURSE OF ACTION.
UM, THE FIRST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO DENY THE SUMMARY MOTION, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
LET'S MAKE THAT AS A SEPARATE MOTION, PLEASE.
I MOVED AND THEN I, UH, THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? DO I HAVE A SECOND? THE MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT THE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL TO THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON BEHALF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
PROBABLY NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ONE.
[01:00:01]
DO.MR. UH, JOHANSON? YES, BECAUSE THE MOTION WOULD PASS THREE TO TWO.
ALRIGHT, THAT BRINGS US THEN TO, TO AGENDA ITEM
[11. Conduct an Appeal Hearing on behalf of Kyle Flint, formerly with BRFD. a. After arguments, the Board may move to go into Executive Session pursuant to La. R.S. 42:16, La. R.S. 42:17, La. Atty Gen. Op. No. 03-0182, and La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 18-0144]
13, TO CONDUCT AN APPEAL HEARING ON BEHALF OF KYLE FLINT, FORMER OF THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.ALL, ANYBODY, MR. CHAIRMAN DAWN GEAT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE CHIEF IS SITTING IN AS A REPRESENTATIVE? YES MA'AM.
AND DUSTIN FLINT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF, UH, KYLE FLINT.
AND IF IT PLEASES THE BOARD, CAN WE MOVE TO THE ONE OF THESE CHAIRS RIGHT OVER HERE AT THE COUNCIL TABLE? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, CAN WE IDENTIFY ON THE RECORD BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT WALK, FLINT, UH, WHO ALL THE WITNESSES ARE, AND THEN ARE WE GONNA SEQUESTER THE WITNESSES OR DO WE HAVE ANY PREFERENCES ON THAT? UM, WE FILED A, UM, UM, WITNESS LIST.
UH, MS. MS SKIT MAY WANNA TELL YOU WHO HER, HER WITNESSES ARE.
I, I DON'T HAVE ANY, UM, ANY REASON TO SEQUESTER THE WITNESSES? I DON'T BELIEVE OUR WITNESSES ARE GONNA BE MR. FLINT.
AND THEN, UM, WELL, LEMME LOOK AT MY WITNESS LIST SO I'M NOT TELLING YOU SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TRUE HERE.
YEAH, BECAUSE OUR WITNESSES ARE GONNA BE MR. FLINT, MR. UH, JOEY BOWAN.
WE, WE ACTUALLY ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION AS TO WHAT DR.
UM, CAPTAIN BENGIO AND THEN ANY WITNESSES CALLED BY THE OTHER SIDE, BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND ANY WITNESSES NEEDED TO AUTHENTICATE ANY DOCUMENT OR TO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO UM, FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
BUT AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, IT'S JUST GONNA BE MR. FLINT AND MR. CASHIO.
AND THEN ANYBODY THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CALLS MS. GILLO, UH, WHO ARE THE YES, WHO ARE YOUR WITNESSES? UM, WE HAD FIVE WITNESSES.
THE CHIEF WILL OBVIOUSLY BE A WITNESS.
THE OTHER FOUR THAT WE'VE LISTED, WE HAVE PRESENT, UH, GIVEN OUR JOINT STIPULATIONS, WE DON'T INTEND TO CALL THEM, BUT WE HAVE THEM PRESENT SO THEY CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
THAT'S DEPUTY CHIEF
UH, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND DO THOUGH IS UH, PUT EVERYBODY UNDER OATH SO WE DON'T FORGET THAT.
UH, IF YOU'RE GONNA TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER OR COULD POTENTIALLY TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER, COULD YOU STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU ALL SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? SO HELP YOU GUIDE AND LET THE RECORD JUST REFLECT THAT EVERYBODY, UH, NODDED IN AFFIRMANCE OF THAT ISSUE.
UH, THEN MS. GUILLO, MR. FLINT DOES NOT SEE A NEED FOR ANY KIND OF SEQUESTRATION.
UM, BOARD MEMBERS, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME JOINT STIPULATIONS AND, UH, JOINT EXHIBITS.
I'M GONNA READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD, BUT YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ALL OF THAT.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THAT INTO THE RECORD NOW.
KYLE FLINT APPEAL HEARING BATON ROUGE FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, TERMINATION APPEAL JOINT STIPULATIONS, PETITIONER KYLE FLINT AND THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE THROUGH THE BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT.
HEREBY AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
NUMBER ONE, ON JANUARY 31ST, 2024, KYLE FLINT WAS NOTIFIED THAT HE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER INVESTIGATION REPORTS THAT HE WAS WORKING AT OUR LADY OF THE LAKE WHILE HE WAS OFF ON SICK LEAVE WITH THE BRFD.
HE WAS NOTIFIED BY HIS LETTER OF INVESTIGATION.
DURING THE INVESTIGATION, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CONFIRMED THAT FLINT WORKED THE FOLLOWING DATES FOR THEM.
10 28 23 11 3 20 23 11 9 20 23, 11 13, 20 23, 11 17, 23, 11 22 20 23, 11 27 20 23, 12 26 20 23.
[01:05:21]
1 8 20 24 1 9 24 1 12 24 1 16, 24, 1 17, 24 AND 1 18 24 3 CLINT NOTIFIED THE DEPARTMENT THAT HE WAS GOING OFF ON SICK LEAVE.FOUR CLINT WAS RELEASED FROM THE DOCTOR'S CARE AND WAS CLEARED TO COME BACK TO WORK ON JANUARY 19TH, 2024 FIVE.
ON FEBRUARY 20TH, 2024 FLINT WAS PROVIDED WITH A LETTER FOR A PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING EXHIBIT THREE SIX ON FEBRUARY 29TH, 2024 THE PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH CHIEF SPILLMAN, CHIEF EDINS AND CHIEF KIMBALL PRESENT.
PARISH ATTORNEY DON OTT CALLED INTO THE MEETING VIA TELEPHONE AND MR. DUSTIN FLINT WAS ALSO PRESENT REPRESENTING KYLE FLINT.
DURING THIS HEARING, FLINT WAS ALLOWED TO MAKE COMMENTS AND PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION HE WOULD LIKE FOR THE CHIEF TO CONSIDER CONCERNING THE ALLEGATIONS.
FLINT STATED THAT HE WAS SORRY.
HE DISCUSSED HIS FEARS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALLEGED CHARGES AND THAT BEING IN A ROOM BY HIMSELF STRESSED HIM OUT EVEN MORE.
HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD THE DEPARTMENT, BUT ADMITTED THAT WORKING IN THE ER DID TECHNICALLY VIOLATE THE RULE.
DURING THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING, JEREMY GERALD FIRE INSPECTOR TWO.
MICHAEL RICHARDSON'S, SUPPLY TECHNICIAN TECHNICIAN ANTHONY WILLIAMS, CHIEF OF FIRE PREVENTION AND VOLTAIRE SANDERS, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF SAFETY ALL TESTIFIED ON MR. FLINT'S BEHALF.
THEY ALL TESTIFIED REGARDING THEIR CONCERN FOR MR. FLINT'S MENTAL HEALTH BEFORE HE WENT ON STRESS LEAVE.
JOEY BOWEN TREATED FLINT FOR MENTAL ILLNESS CAUSED BY CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS WHICH FLINT BELIEVED WERE FALSELY LEVIED AGAINST HIM.
BOWAN RE REMOVED FLINT FROM WORK DUE TO STRESS STARTING OCTOBER 19TH, 2023.
BOWAN ADVISED FLINT THAT SU SPENDING TIME ALONE WAS NOT GOOD.
HIS MENTAL HEALTH AT THE TIME.
BONIN ADVISED FLINT TO ATTEMPT TO BE IN THE COMPANY OF PEOPLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND AVOID BEING ALONE.
JOINT EXHIBITS ONE FLINT NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE INVESTIGATION.
FLINT PREDETERMINATION NOTICE FOUR.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PREDETERMINATION NOTICE.
SIX FLINT TERMINATION NOTICE AGREED TO ON THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BY SIGNATURE DUSTIN G FLINT.
DUSTIN FLINT, ATTORNEY FOR EMPLOYEE KYLE FLINT.
AGREED ON THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BY SIGNATURE.
DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? UH, YOU ACTUALLY READ IT PERFECTLY AND UH, I JUST NOTICED IT WASN'T WRITTEN AS CLEANLY AS WE THOUGHT IT WAS THERE, BUT YOU DID A GREAT JOB.
UH, COUNSEL FOR BRFD, ANY OBJECTIONS TO WHAT I READ? NO, YOU DID GREAT.
AND MR. CHAIR, I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD GO AHEAD AND, UM, ENTER THE EXHIBITS, THE JOINT EXHIBITS AND ACCEPT THE STIPULATION.
SO I'D MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, I TO ADVISE THAT YOU ALL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JOINT STIPULATIONS AND JOINT EXHIBITS.
I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION MYSELF.
DO I GET A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. UH, RICKS?
OPPOSED HIS NAY? IF SO, ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
ALRIGHT COUNSEL, DO YOU GUYS NEED, UH, BRIEF OPENING STATEMENTS? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS NECESSARY GIVEN THAT THE JOINT STIPULATIONS PRETTY MUCH OUTLINED THE CASE.
SO I WOULD THINK WE COULD MOVE INTO TESTIMONY AND RETAIN OUR RIGHTS TO CLOSING.
[01:10:01]
STILL THINK THEY PROBABLY WANT SETTLE THAT AGAIN.ARE YOU, THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.
COUNSEL, UH, MR. FLINT, DO YOU HAVE, UH, ANY PREFERENCE ON OPENING STATEMENTS? I I THINK THAT IT IS GONNA BE PRETTY CLEAR TO THE BOARD WHAT'S GOING ON WITHOUT ME, UH, TALKING ANY MORE THAN I HAVE TO.
ALRIGHT, WELL, UM, WITH THAT WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO BRFD AND MS. GIA AND MR. FLINT, UH, YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO COUNSEL TABLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SIT NEXT TO THE BRFD FOLKS.
OH, WE, WE LIKE THOSE GUYS ANYWAYS.
WE'LL GO TO THIS SIDE IF IT'S ALL THE SAME TO THE BOARD.
GIVEN THE JOINT STIPULATIONS AND THE JOINT EXHIBITS, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY WITNESS THAT WE NEED TO CALL FOR TESTIMONY WOULD BE CHIEF KIMBALL.
WE DO, HOWEVER, HAVE OUR OTHER WITNESSES THAT WERE LISTED AND WE WANT TO OFFER THEM TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FOR ASSISTANCE.
UH, CHIEF JEMAN WOULD BE THERE IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DATES THAT HE WORKED AT OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, UH, CHIEF EDGES WOULD BE THERE IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH MR. FLINT OR THE, OR THE RULES.
AND THE TWO FIRE PREVENTION CHIEFS WOULD BE THERE IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS PARTICULAR, UM, JOB ASSIGNMENT THAT HE HAD.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BOARD ASK THEM QUESTIONS NOW OR ARE YOU JUST KIND OF LETTING US KNOW ABOUT THAT? I'M LETTING Y'ALL KNOW THEY'RE THERE.
WE DON'T INTEND TO CALL 'EM ON OUR CASE IN CHIEF.
WE DON'T THINK WE NEED 'EM TO PROVE OUR CASE IN CHIEF, BUT THEY'RE AVAILABLE IF AT ANY POINT THEY WANNA BE CALLED BY THE BOARD.
SO THEY CERTAINLY COULD CALL THEM NOW IF THEY WANTED TO.
YOU GIVE ME DIRECTION BOARD MEMBERS.
DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR WOULD YOU LIKE THE CHIEF TO GO AHEAD AND, UH, PROCEED WITH TESTIMONY? I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GO AND HEAR THE CHIEF AND THEN, UH, LET THAT FOLLOW ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE.
THEN WE WILL CALL CHIEF, UH, MICHAEL J KIMBLE.
WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION FOR THE RECORD? MICHAEL J KIMBLE, FIRE CHIEF FOR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT POSITION? UH, RIGHT OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS.
AND DID YOU COME TO TERMINATE MR. KYLE FLINT, UH, CONCERNING YOUR DUTIES WITH THAT POSITION? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND I WILL DIRECT YOU TO THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, WHICH HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS EXHIBIT NUMBER SIX FOR EVERYONE'S PURPOSE.
UM, IS THAT THE TERMINATION LETTER THAT YOU WROTE, MR. FLINT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE STIPULATIONS AND ALL THE EXHIBITS AND YOUR TESTIMONY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AS TO THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY YOU BELIEVED THAT MR. FLYNN'S ACTIONS WARRANTED TERMINATION.
SO AS YOU'VE READ OVER, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN IN THE NOTES OF TERMINATION, UH, WE PLACED MR. FLYNN UNDER INVESTIGATION JANUARY THE 31ST.
UM, DUE TO THE INFORMATION WE HAD RECEIVED THAT WHILE BEING OFF ON SICK, MR. FLINT WAS WORKING AT A SECOND JOB.
UM, MR. FLINT WAS ARRESTED AT ONE TIME PRIOR.
WE PLACED HIM ON A ADMINISTER ON SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT IN MAY OF 2023.
WE PLACED HIM IN OUR FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 'CAUSE HE HAD PENDING FELONIES.
UM, HE WAS IN OUR FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU, UH, ASSISTING IN INPUTTING PRE-PLANS INTO OUR DATABASE.
HE WAS WORKING A MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
UM, SO SEVEN TO 4 37 TO 3 30, 4 O'CLOCK.
NOT EXACTLY SURE HIS HOURS, BUT HE HAD, WAS RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF OF FIRE PREVENTION AND ASSISTANT CHIEF.
HE GOES OFF ON SICK LEAVE ON OCTOBER THE 10TH OF 2023.
AND DID THAT OCCUR? EXCUSE ME? DID THAT OCCUR BECAUSE HE PRESENTED THE SICK SLIP THAT WE STIPULATED TO? YES, MA'AM.
SO HE WAS OFF ON HIS SICK LEAVE AND WHY HE WAS OFF.
AND WAS IT, UH, YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF
[01:15:01]
STRESS LEAVE? THAT WAS MY RELATED TO STRESS RELATED EVENTS.THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES MA'AM.
SO PLEASE PICK UP FROM YOU GRANTED THE SICK LEAVE AT THAT TIME.
CORRECT? HE WAS ON SICK LEAVE.
UH, DURING THAT TIME WE WAS INFORMED THAT RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT MR. FLINT WAS WORKING AT A SECOND JOB, UM, WHERE HE COULDN'T COME TO WORK FOR US, BUT HE COULD GO WORK AT HIS SECOND JOB.
SO HE PLACED HIM UNDER INVESTIGATION SHORTLY AFTER THAT OR CLOSE TO THAT HE WAS RELEASED.
UH, HIS CHARGES WAS DROPPED FROM THE, UH, CRIMINAL SIDE AND HE WENT BACK TO HIS DOCTOR AND HIS DOCTOR RELEASED HIM COME BACK TO WORK.
HE REPORTED TO OUR CITY DOCTOR.
AND THE CITY DOCTOR CLEARED, UH, MR. FLINT'S REPORT BACK TO DUTY TO THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME.
AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS ON SICK LEAVE AND UNABLE TO REPORT TO DUTY AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT HE WAS, UH, ENOUGH TO GO WORK AT A SECOND JOB THAT'S, UH, THAT'S NOT GOOD FAITH AND NOT GOING BY DOING WHAT'S RIGHT UNTIL WE MOVED TO TERMINATE.
HAVE YOU IN FACT HAD, UM, WELL STRIKE THAT IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN, UM, WHY YOU BELIEVED THAT HIM WORKING AT A SECOND JOB WHILE HE REPRESENTED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT, THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO WORK, WHY HE BELIEVED THAT TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE STATE STATUTES AND RULES RIGHT UNDER STATE STATUTE 33 2500.
UH, HIS UNWILLINGNESS OR FAILURE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES, THIS POSITION OF SATISFACTORY MANNER, HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AT WORK FOR THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT HE WAS UNABLE TO REPORT, BUT HE WAS ABLE TO REPORT IT AT THE LAY LAKE HOSPITAL WORKING IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM.
UM, IT'S CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, INTEREST.
HOW DOES IT SHOW GOOD FAITH THAT A TAXPAYER'S PAYING AN INDIVIDUAL TO COME TO WORK AND HE'S ABLE TO TAKE THAT LEAVE AND GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE WHILE HE'S ON SICK LEAVE.
AND ALSO IT'S, UH, DISHONEST AND DISGRACEFUL, UH, AS I SEE IT, THAT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT USING GOOD TAXPAYER'S MONEY WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL CAN GO WORK ANOTHER JOB AND ABUSE OUR SICK LEAVE.
DID YOU BELIEVE THAT THESE ACTIONS WARRANTED TERMINATION? YES, I DO.
AND, UH, DID YOU GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS THAT HE WANTED? YES, MA'AM.
WE ALLOWED MR. UH, FLINT TO MAKE SOME STATEMENTS, AND HE, HE MADE THE STATEMENTS THAT, UM, NO, HE WAS SORRY.
AND HE ALSO STATED HE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY GO OUT TO DEFRAUD THE DEPARTMENT.
HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD BROKE THE RULES AND STATED THAT IF I DID FIRE HIM, HE COULDN'T FIGHT IT BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG IN WHAT HE DID.
WE ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS CAREER BENCHMARKS, WHERE WAS HE AT, TOWARDS RETIREMENT OR WHATNOT.
HE'D GIVE US THE DATE THAT HE COULD RETIRE APRIL THE SIXTH OF THIS YEAR.
SO WE ALLOW, WE OFFERED HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETIRE, WAS TOLD NO, AND THEN WE PUSHED OFF MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY TYPE OF DISCIPLINE TILL AFTER THE DATE THAT HE COULD HAVE RETIRED.
SO WE SHOWED, WE WAS TRYING TO LET HIM GET TO HIS RETIREMENT PURPOSES, BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
AND SO THE, THE DATE EFFECTIVE OF THE TERMINATION WAS AFTER THAT RETIREMENT DATE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
I, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
A LITTLE GRAY BUTTON AT THE, IT'S A LITTLE BUTTON ON THE SIDE.
CHIEF KIMBALL, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A, I A COPY OF THIS, UH, OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINERS FIRE AND POLICE, CIVIL SERVICE DISCIPLINE IN THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE HANDBOOK, A GUIDE FOR APPOINTING AUTHORITIES AND, UH, BOARD.
THIS IS, THIS IS PLAINTIFF'S, UH, OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE REALLY, WE, WE ARE KYLE FLINT, EXHIBIT ONE.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE A COPY OF THIS? YEAH.
UM, BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, MS. GUILLO, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, OBJECTION TO THAT EXHIBIT? I'M TRYING TO PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW.
I, UM, SO Y'ALL GIMME JUST A SECOND.
[01:20:01]
YEAH, WE GOT IT.WAS THERE A PARTICULAR SECTION THAT YOU WERE DEALING WITH? UH, I'M GONNA ASK HIM TO TURN TO PAGE SIX TO START OFF WITH.
WELL, THE DEPARTMENT WILL OBJECT FOR NUMEROUS REASONS.
ONE, THERE'S BEEN NO FOUNDATION LAID, UH, THAT THIS BOOK IS INSTRUCTIVE IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
NUMBER TWO, THE BOOK ITSELF IS A HANDBOOK GIVING SUGGESTIONS FROM THE STATE EXAMINER, UH, NOT GIVING DEFINITIVE RULES AND REASONS.
AND, UM, LASTLY, IT WOULD BE HEARSAY, AND THERE'S BEEN NO FOUNDATION LAID AS TO ITS, UH, AUTHENTICITY AND, UH, FOR THE BOARD'S PURPOSE.
I WAS JUST ABOUT TO GET INTO THAT WITH THE CHIEF.
UM, BUT I HAVEN'T STARTED QUESTIONING HIM YET.
I'M GONNA ASK HIM ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL, IT'LL, IT'LL ALEVE ALL WORRIES THAT THIS IS SOME KIND OF ROAD DOCUMENT OUT THERE THAT SHOULDN'T BE, UH, LISTENED TO.
AND MS. GUILLO, UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE OSC IS APPOINTING, UH, HANDBOOK HERE? OR, SO ARE YOU SAYING IT'S NOT AUTHENTIC, IS WHAT I'M ASKING? I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT AUTHENTIC.
I'M SAYING THAT HE HAS NOT LAID THE FOUNDATION IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE THAT DOCUMENT.
IT CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AS A JOINT EXHIBIT OR SHARED WHICH PORTIONS IT IS.
UH, I AM STATING THAT THE ENTIRE BOOK IS IRRELEVANT.
UH, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE SPECIFIC PORTIONS THAT HE WANTS TO POINT OUT, I'D ALLOW IT.
I THINK THE CHAIR WILL ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF THE MANUAL.
UM, CHIEF KIM, WOULD YOU TURN TO PAGE SIX, PLEASE, SIR? YES, SIR.
THIS, UH, I, I'M, I'M, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, UM, DISCIPLINE IN THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE HANDBOOK.
AND, UH, ON PAGE SIX, THIS PAGE GIVES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTION AS TO HOW TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT VIOLATING THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND, UM, DO YOU SEE UNDER THE INVESTIGATIONS HEADING, UM, RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT SIDE FOR THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS? YOU SEE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT ON PAGE SIX? YES, SIR.
CAN YOU READ FOR ME, PLEASE, THE FIRST SENTENCE THERE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS? YEAH.
ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT INVESTIGATIONS TABLE.
BECAUSE IT, IT, IT, IT DIVIDES IT BETWEEN THE FIRE SERVICE AND THE POLICE SERVICE.
SO THE FIRST SENTENCE UNDER FIRE SERVICE, BILL OF RIGHTS, FIRE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVIDES THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY SHALL NOTIFY IN WRITING PRIOR TO START OF INVESTIGATION.
SO, SH IT SAYS, SHALL NOTIFY PRIOR TO THE START OF INVESTIGATION.
NOW, I, UH, CHIEF, I'M ALSO GONNA GIVE YOU A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT YOU GAVE MR. FLINT, UM, THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS TALKING ABOUT HERE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF OUR JOINT EXHIBITS.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHICH ONE, BUT THIS, UH, A NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION THAT THE WHOLE BOARD SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF YOU CHIEF.
CHIEF, WHAT, UH, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT NOTICE.
WHAT IS THE DATE OF THAT NOTICE? IT'S FEBRUARY THE FIRST, 2024.
AND LOOK AT THE, THE TOP OF PAGE TWO OF THAT.
NOTICE IF YOU WOULD, WHAT IS THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION? FEBRUARY THE FIRST, 2024.
SO YOUR NOTICE IS DATED FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024.
AND IT TELLS MR. FLINT THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS TO COMMENCE ON FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024, RIGHT? SAME DATE, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
NOW I'M GONNA HAND YOU ANOTHER JOINT EXHIBIT, WHICH IS A INVESTIGATIVE STATEMENT BY ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WAS INVESTIGATING MR. FLINT.
AND THIS IS SIR, THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THIS TOO.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHICH ONE, BUT IT STARTS, IT STARTS OFF ON 1 30, 1 24.
[01:25:01]
DOES EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE A COPY OF THAT? YES.SO THIS IS AN INVESTIGATIVE STATEMENT BY ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVESTIGATING MR. FLINT.
WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE FOR ME, PLEASE? ON 1 31 24, I WAS ASKED TO INVESTIGATE EFL KYLE FLINT, WHO IS SUSPECTED OF WORKING ANOTHER JOB WHILE BEING OFF SICK AT THE BRFD.
NOW, WOULD YOU READ THE SENTENCE ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THAT PARAGRAPH, STARTING WITH, I WAS INFORMED.
THE OTHER JOB HE WAS SUSPECTED OF WORKING WAS AT OUR LAY LAKE, OUR, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE.
SO ON 1 31 24, I CALLED THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AT OUR LADY OF LAKE AND TALKED TO TAMRA 2, 2, 5, 7, 6 5 6 5 6 5, AND DISCOVER THESE FINDINGS.
SO THIS STATEMENT ESTABLISHES THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS WELL UNDERWAY ON JANUARY 31ST, 2024, WHICH IS THE DAY BEFORE THE NOTICE WAS DATED.
AND THE DAY BEFORE, THE NOTICE SAYS THAT YOUR INVESTIGATION WOULD COR COMMENCE.
THE ERROR OF THE DATE IS A MISTAKE ON MY PART.
WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW THAT MR. FLINT RECEIVED A LETTER ON THE 31ST.
'CAUSE I WAS TYPING THIS, I WAS TYPED THE WRONG DATE RIGHT.
BUT, BUT IN, IN, IN, SO TYPING THIS UP, YOU TOLD MR. FLINT IN HIS, UM, IN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS LETTER, THAT THE INVESTIGATION WOULD COMMENCE ON FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AGAIN, THAT WAS A HUMAN ERROR MISTAKE ON THE DATE.
AND, AND, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT, BUT, UH, UM, CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE DOESN'T DO MUCH GOOD IF IT DOESN'T TELL THE TRUTH, DOES IT? OKAY.
FIRST OF ALL, HE'S ARGUING WITH, WITH THE WITNESS.
AND SECOND OF ALL, UH, THERE IS A STIPULATION.
HAVE YOU RECEIVED THIS ON JANUARY 31ST AS WELL AS A EXHIBIT THAT HAS BEEN ENTERED THAT SAYS HE RECEIVED IT ON JANUARY 21ST, 31ST? I UNDERSTAND HE NEEDS TO POINT IT OUT TO THE BOARD, BUT HE CAN'T GO AGAINST THE STIPULATIONS AND THE JOINT EXHIBIT AND, AND JUST FOR THE BOARD'S OBJECTION, SUSTAINED.
WELL, FOR THE, FOR THE PURPOSE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE IT ON JANUARY 31ST.
IN FACT, WE DID STIPULATE THAT HE RECEIVED THIS LETTER ON JANUARY 31ST.
I WAS SIMPLY ASKING ABOUT THE DATE THAT THE, THE NOTICE LETTER TELLS MR. FLINT THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS TO START, AND THAT THAT NOTICE LETTER AS MR. AS, UH, CHIEF KIMBALL HAS POINTED OUT, SAYS THAT THE NOTICE LETTER SAYS THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS INVESTIGATION WOULD BE FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024.
THAT THAT'S ALL I'M, I'M SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING AGAINST THE, THE STIPULATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
HE RECEIVED THIS LETTER ON JANUARY 31ST, AND HE'LL TELL YOU THAT IF, IF ASKED, BUT IF YOU'VE ALREADY STIPULATED TO THE DATE, THEN WHY GO INTO THAT ARGUMENT? WE'RE STIPULATING TO THE DATE THAT HE RECEIVED THIS LETTER.
BUT I'M POINTING OUT THAT THE DATE THAT THE LETTER TELLS HIM THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS TO START WAS FEBRUARY 1ST.
AND WE'VE GOT A STATEMENT SHOWING THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAD STARTED BEFORE FEBRUARY 1ST.
THAT THAT'S ALL, THAT, THOSE ARE ALL JOINT JOINT EXHIBITS FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE BOARD TO LOOK AT REGARDLESS OF WHEN HE RECEIVED THE LETTER.
OUR, OUR POINT IS THAT THE LETTER STATES THAT THE INVESTIGATION WOULD START ON FEBRUARY 1ST, BUT WE KNOW THAT THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT START ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
IT STARTED AT SOME POINT IN TIME BEFORE THAT.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS.
MS. GI, WERE YOU GONNA SAY SOMETHING BEFORE I ADVISE? YES.
WHEN YOU SEE THE LISTING OF THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS AND WHAT HAS TO BE IN THE NOTICE, IT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT TO HIM PRIOR TO THE INVESTIGATION STARTING, WHICH WE DID.
THERE'S JOINT STIPULATION THAT IT WAS GIVEN TO HIM PRIOR TO, IT DOES NOT LIST IN THE FIVE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE TO TELL HIM THE DATE THAT IT'S GONNA START.
IT SAYS THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE IDENTITY AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE PERSON, THE SPECIFIC CHARGES, THE INVESTIGATION WILL BE COMPLETED AND THAT THEY'D BE CONDUCTING THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
IT DOESN'T SAY IN THE CONTENT OF THE LETTER THAT YOU MUST SAY IT WILL START ON THIS DATE.
SO THAT DATE IN THERE, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY EVERYONE TO BE A TYPO BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS IT ALL HAPPENED ON THE 31ST, BUT EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S LISTED, IT WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION.
SO, MR. CHAIR, THE OBJECTION WAS TO THE QUESTION ABOUT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE DOES ANY GOOD.
IF IT DOESN'T TELL ANY TRUTH, UH, THAT'S THE QUE THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE OBJECTING TO.
I THINK YOU SHOULD SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
[01:30:01]
WITHDRAW THAT QUESTION.NEXT QUESTION IS WITHDRAWN AND I ALREADY HAVE SUSTAINED IT.
UM, OKAY, CHIEF, LET'S GO BACK TO PAGE SIX OF THAT HANDBOOK.
AND WE'RE, WE'RE STILL ON THAT SECOND, UM, THAT SECOND, THAT SECTION OVER TO THE LEFT THAT TALK ABOUT THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS.
UM, CAN YOU READ, WELL, LET'S SEE.
SO, SO THE, THE, THE HANDBOOK SAYS THAT IT SHALL, THAT, THAT THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVIDES AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY SHALL NOTIFY IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INVESTIGATION.
AND THEN IT GIVES FIVE THINGS THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE NOTIFIED OF, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT MR. FLINT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE NOTIFIED OF.
COULD YOU READ NUMBER FOUR FOR ME, PLEASE? INVESTIGATION SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF FIRE.
SO IT SAYS THAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE NOTIFIED, SUPPOSED TO BE TOLD IN THE LETTER THAT THEY HAVE, THAT YOU HAVE 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE THAT INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
CAN YOU LOOK BACK AT THAT, UH, NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE? DOES THAT NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVING 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE ITS INVESTIGATION? HAS TO BE THAT IT HAS TO BE COMPLETED? NO, SIR.
SO, UM, SO MR. FLINT WAS NOT TOLD IN THIS NOTICE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD 60 DAYS TO, TO CALCULATE, I MEAN, TO, UH, COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION AS FAR AS YOU CAN TELL, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND EVEN IF MR. FLINT SOMEHOW KNEW ABOUT THE 60 DAY RULE AND HE TRIED TO CALCULATE THAT, UH, WHEN THE DUE DATE WAS, HE COULDN'T DO SO BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THE INVESTIGATION STARTED, BECAUSE THE NOTICE TOLD HIM FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024.
BUT WE KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT IT STARTED BEFORE FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024, CORRECT? IT STARTED THE 31ST.
WELL, BUT DOES THE, UH, NOTICE TELL HIM ANYWHERE THAT THE INVESTIGATION STARTED ON THE 31ST? NO, SIR.
WE JUST KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS ON THE 31ST BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
SO AS YOU, AS YOU, AS YOU'RE STANDING HERE TODAY LOOKING AT THIS, DO YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SHOW MR. FLINT OR GIVE MR. FLINT ANY IDEA AT ALL OF THE DATE THAT THIS INVESTIGATION STARTED? SAY THAT AGAIN, SIR.
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF YOU THAT WOULD GIVE MR. FLINT ANY IDEA AT ALL OF THE DATE THAT THE INVESTIGATION STARTED? WELL, AS I SAID EARLIER, BY THE HUMAN ERROR, BUT IT SAYS THE COMMENCEMENT DATE, FEBRUARY THE FIRST, 2024.
WHICH IS WRONG ACTUALLY, THE 31ST OF JANUARY.
BUT YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM THAT COULD HAVE, COULD HAVE BEEN, COULD HAVE BEEN JANUARY 10TH.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE SAYING THAT IT WASN'T JANUARY 10TH, RIGHT.
OR JAN, OR, OR ANY OTHER DATE.
THAT, THAT, I I THINK WE MADE OUR POINT THERE, CHIEF.
UM, ALRIGHT, LET'S GO BACK TO THE HANDBOOK.
IF WE COULD, CAN YOU TURN TO PAGE 16 WITH ME PLEASE? WHICH IS A CHECKLIST FOR A FIRE INVESTIGATION TO, THIS HELPS KEEP THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM VIOLATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
IT'S KIND OF A CHECKLIST FOR YOU GUYS TO, TO, UM, TO FOLLOW.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? IT CAN BE USED.
SO DO YOU SEE ABOUT FIVE SPOTS DOWN, UH, WHERE IT SAYS THAT THERE'S A SPOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DONE? CORRECT.
AND WHAT DOES IT SAY RIGHT UNDER THAT NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION? UH, NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION TO EMPLOYEE.
WHAT DOES IT TELL, WHAT DOES IT TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD DO ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY? NO, NO.
THE NEXT, THE, THE OH COPY OF FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS INCLUDED COPY OF THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS INCLUDED WITH THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION.
DID YOU PROVIDE MR. FLINT WITH A COPY OF THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS? NO.
ALL BUT IT DOES SAY HERE ON HIS NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION, THE INVESTIGATION WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS AND A FIRE EMPLOYEE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH STATES OUT THE STATUTES THAT IT FILES UNDER.
BUT HE DIDN'T GET, GET A COPY OF THAT.
I PROVIDED HIM WITH THE NUMBERS STATING
[01:35:01]
THAT HERE'S THE STATUTE NUMBERS FOR THOSE, BUT THAT THIS HANDBOOK SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE HIM A COPY OF THAT.UM, LET'S GO, LET'S GO BACK TO THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION THAT WE DATED FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024.
UH, WOULD YOU READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE FOR ME PLEASE? THE FIRE CHIEF MICHAEL J KIMBLE INTENDS TO COMMENCE A FORMAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AND OR THAT ONE OR MORE RECENT OCCASIONS YOU VIOLATED BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE, CIVIL SERVICE LAWS AND OR STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS.
SO YOU'RE TELLING MR. FLINT THAT YOU'RE INVESTIGATING HIM BREAKING A RULE.
IT COULD BE A POLICY OR PROCEDURE, IT COULD BE A CIVIL SERVICE RULE, IT COULD BE A, IT COULD BE A STATE LAW, IT COULD BE A FEDERAL LAW, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
LET'S MOVE DOWN TO WHERE YOU GIVEN NOTICE OF SPECIFICALLY WHAT RULES YOU SUSPECT HIM OF VIOLATING.
CAN YOU TURN TO PAGE, UH, TWO, NUMBER FIVE WHERE IT SAYS SPECIFIC CHARGES? YOU REFERRED TO THE HANDBOOK, SIR.
NO, NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NOTICE.
OH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE STILL ON THE NOTICE.
SO, SO WE'RE GOING, SO YOU'VE TOLD HIM THAT, THAT YOU'RE, THAT YOU'RE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR BREAKING A RULE POLICY OR PROCEDURE RULE, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, STATE LAW, FEDERAL LAW.
AND THEN WE'RE GONNA MOVE DOWN TO WHERE IT SAYS SPECIFIC CHARGES.
WERE YOU'RE GIVING HIM CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGES THAT HE, THAT HE BROKE.
DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT THERE ON NUMBER FIVE? YES, SIR.
SO YOU FIRST CITE LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 33 2500, WHICH IS THE GENERAL STATUTE THAT GIVES YOU AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOU LIST SEVEN OF THE 15 GENERAL REASONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT STATUTE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT SAYS, UM, AND THIS IS THE SPECIFIC FIRE DEPARTMENT RULE AND REGULATION THAT YOU GAVE HIM NOTICE THAT HE VIOLATED, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
POTENTIALLY VIOLATED? YES, SIR.
COULD YOU READ THAT RULE PLEASE? ALL MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT MUST BE AT ALL TIMES, BE QUIET, CIVIL, AND ORDERLY, AND IN PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES MUST MAY OBTAIN DECRIM COMMAND OF TEMPER, PATIENCE AND DISCRETION.
SO DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR NOT BEING QUIET? NO, SIR.
DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR NOT BEING CIVIL? NO, SIR.
DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR NOT BEING ORDERLY? NO, SIR.
DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR NOT MAINTAINING THE QUORUM IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES? NO, SIR.
DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR NOT MAINTAINING COMMAND OF HIS TEMPER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES? NO, SIR.
DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR NOT MAINTAINING PATIENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES? NO, SIR.
DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR MAIN, FOR NOT MAINTAINING DISCRETION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES? NO, SIR.
DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENT RULE OR REGULATION ON THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU GAVE NOTICE TO MR. FLINT THAT HE VIOLATED THAT WAS THE ONLY BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT STATUTE OR RULE? THERE WAS SOME STATE STATUTES THAT WAS VIOLATED.
I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT AND WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THAT TOO.
BUT, SO, BUT, BUT AS FAR AS THIS GOES, YOU JUST SORT OF THREW THAT RULE IN THERE FOR NO REASON THEN, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
WE WAS LOOKING UNDER THE INVESTIGATION AND THAT WAS POTENTIALLY THE ALLEGATIONS.
NOTHING WAS CONFIRMED AT THAT TIME.
DON'T YOU THINK THAT PLACING A RULE IN THE NOTICE THAT YOU ADMIT THAT HE DIDN'T BREAK IS A PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO HIS, UH, MR. FRONT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS, RIGHT? TO NOTICE? SO THIS IS A NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION.
THIS, LET ME OBJECT TO THE QUESTION.
HE'S ASKING THE WITNESS, UH, HIS LEGAL OPINION ON ISSUES THE STATE.
SO, UH, CHIEF KIMBALL, YOU MENTIONED, UM, THE STATE'S STATUTE, RIGHT? REVISED STATUTE 33 2500.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT YOU, THAT YOU GAVE HIM NOTICE THAT HE MAY HAVE BROKE.
THEY MAY HAVE VIOLATED, CORRECT? CORRECT, SIR.
UM, WHY DON'T YOU READ THAT FIRST SECTION AND LET ME OBJECT, LET ME OBJECT FOR THE RECORD THAT THE ONLY RELEVANT SECTIONS ARE THOSE THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE TERMINATION LETTER.
THE CHIEF SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED HOW HE VIOLATED EACH SECTION.
AND WHAT HE'S GOING THROUGH IS THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION, WHICH SAYS POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS, NOT THE ONES THAT THE CHIEF ACTUALLY DETERMINED WERE VIOLATED.
AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS JUST SIMPLY THAT THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION IS THE ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION, UH, REFERS TO WITH GIVING HIM NOTICE SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
NOW WE CAN GO THROUGH THE, THE, THE POST-TERMINATION LETTER OR THE PRE-DETERMINATION LETTER, WHICH SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING.
BY THE WAY, IT'S THE EXACT SAME LETTER.
WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT IF WE WANT TO.
BUT THE NOTICE THAT MATTERS, THE NOTICE THAT MR. FLINT
[01:40:01]
IS, IS SUPPOSED TO USE IN ORDER TO PRESENT A DEFENSE TO, TO COME TO AGAINST THESE CHARGES, IS RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US.THIS IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, THAT HE BE GIVEN NOTICE FOR THIS IS THE LETTER.
SO IT'S VERY RELEVANT IF, IF, IF THAT'S THE, THE OBJECTION.
ANY RESPONSE, MS. GI WELL, THE RELEVANT, THE RELEVANT PORTIONS ARE THE ONES THAT HE WAS TERMINATED FOR.
CLEARLY HE WAS CHARGED WITH MORE THAN HE WAS TERMINATED FOR.
AND, AND SO, AND THAT'S SPECIFIC.
SO JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU NOTIFY SOMEONE THAT THEY MIGHT BE GUILTY OF THIS, BUT YOU DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT, THEN THAT WOULDN'T BE BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO IF YOU'RE ASKING HIM ABOUT ONE OF 'EM THAT DIDN'T END UP WITH THE TERMINATION LETTER, THEN THAT ONE WOULD BE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THAT.
AND SO, COUNSEL, I I TEND TO AGREE WITH MS. GUILLO THAT THE ONES, I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE BEING THE ONE YOU HAVE TO ARGUE ABOUT, BUT IF IT ULTIMATELY DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE TERMINATION LETTER, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S, IT'S WORTH A QUESTION.
WELL, I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THIS ON THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE AND WE CAN ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THIS ON ANY ON, ON ALL THREE OF 'EM.
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT'S THE SAME CHARGES ON EACH OF THE LETTERS.
SO THE BOARD HAS A COPY, UH, AS A, AS A JOINT EXHIBIT OF THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE.
SO FOR, FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE RULES ARE THE SAME IN EACH OF THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS? THEY CITED THE SAME RULE THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY BROKE.
THERE'S NO CHANGE IN ANY DOCUMENT.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE ANY DOCUMENT, ANY CHANGE AT ALL.
BUT THE, THE BOARD CAN LOOK, I MEAN, YOU ALL HAVE A COPY IN FRONT OF YOU, AND I HAVE A COPY FOR EACH OF YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EXACT SAME RULES.
AND DESPITE WHAT MS. GITT WOULD LIKE FOR, FOR TO BE THE CASE, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES NOTICE TO MR. FLINT SO THAT HE CAN PREPARE HIS DEFENSE.
OKAY? SO THE WHAT WAS IN THIS LETTER MATTERS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HIS DUE PROCESS, UH, RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO THIS WITH, WITH ANY OF THE LETTERS THAT THE, UH, BOARD WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO GO THROUGH WITH IT.
MS. GA IS THE ARGUMENT THAT WE GAVE HIM TOO MUCH NOTICE.
I MEAN, IF WE GAVE HIM NOTICE OF THINGS THAT DIDN'T TRANSPIRE OUT TO BE TERMINATED FOR, THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE MADE IS THAT WE GAVE HIM TOO MUCH NOTICE.
WELL, I THINK, WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
NOW, DID WE MENTION SOME THERE? AND IT'S NOT IN THE TERMINATION LETTER.
HE, HE'S REFERRING TO THE PRETERM 'CAUSE ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S THINGS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.
I MEAN, I'M SORRY THE CHIEF IS CONSIDERING, BUT ULTIMATELY WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO THE TERMINATION LETTER, THE CHIEF POINTS OUT HOW EACH SECTION IS VIOLATED OF 2,500.
HE DOESN'T MENTION THE, THE LOCAL RULE AGAIN.
AND HE GOES TO 2,500 AND LISTS IT OUT AND MAKES A REFERENCE IN HIS PARAGRAPH AS TO HOW EACH ONE WAS VIOLATED.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY RELEVANT ONES, UNLESS WE'RE ARGUING THAT WE GAVE HIM TOO MUCH NOTICE.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ARGUMENT HE IS MAKING.
IF IT MAKES THINGS EASIER, LET'S, LET'S JUST USE THE TERMINATION NOTICE.
I THINK COUNSEL IS SAYING THAT IT'S ALL THE SAME STUFF.
THE SAME THING IS WRITTEN IN THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE AND THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION.
BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE FOR THE, UH, FOR THE BOARD TO, TO MAKE THE POINT TO THE BOARD THAT THIS NOTICE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT, OKAY? UNDER THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION AND THE, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
SO WHICHEVER ONE OF THESE NOTICES WE USE, WE, WE, THE BOARD IS GONNA HAVE TO GET TO THE POINT OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THEY GAVE MR. FLINT NOTICE OF THE RULE THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY BROKE.
OKAY? SO, SO FAR, CHIEF KIMBALL HAS SAID, THIS IS NOT THE RULE YOU BROKE.
THIS IS NOT THE RULE YOU BROKE.
THIS IS NOT THE RULE YOU BROKE.
WE'RE GONNA KEEP GOING FORWARD.
AND WE CAN DO THAT WITH EITHER ONE OF THESE NOTICES.
WELL, WELL, THE, THE, THE PREDETERMINATION COMPARED TO THE TERMINATION, YOU'VE GOT NUMBER 15 REMOVED.
YOU'VE GOT, UH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDUCT REMOVED.
SO I I I MEAN, I PREFER THAT YOU GO OFF OF THE TERMINATION LETTER AS WELL.
YEAH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRE-DETERMINATION NOTICE LETTER? NO, HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE TERMINATION LETTER, NOTICE OF TERMINATION, PREPARE TO PRE-DETERMINATION OF TERMINATION, NO TERMINATION.
I I WAS GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AND ASK THAT YOU MOVE ON TO THE TERMINATION LETTER.
I I I WILL, I WILL SUGGEST TO, TO THE BOARD THOUGH THAT THE TERMINATION LETTER IS NOT A NOTICE LETTER.
OKAY? THAT IS NOT THE, THE, THE NOTICE.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS WHETHER OR NOT MR. FLINT WAS GIVEN DUE PROCESS.
NOTICE ONCE YOU'VE TERMINATED HIM, WHEN YOU TOLD HIM WHAT YOU ALREADY TERMINATED HIM FOR, THE, THE REASON FOR, FOR DUE PROCESS NOTICE IS SO THAT HE CAN PREPARE HIS DEFENSE
[01:45:01]
FOR WHEN HE GOES TO HIS HEARING.OKAY? THE TERMINATION LETTER IS POST-HEARING.
THIS IS PRE-HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MR. FLINT WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF THE CHARGES THAT ARE AGAINST HIM THAT HE'S GOING TO BE JUDGED ON.
NOW I HAVE A, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION.
THE ONLY THING THAT I SEE THAT IS THAT THERE'S ITEM 15 AND, UH, SUBSECTION B, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT EVERYTHING ELSE WITHIN THE TERMINATION LETTER WAS IN THE PRETERM, UH, NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION AND THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE.
SO I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE YOUR ARGUMENT'S GOING.
NO, I, I GET HIS ARGUMENT, UH, THE, THE, WHAT HE'S SAYING THAT Y'ALL ARE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING.
WHAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FOCUS ON THE TERMINATION LETTER.
THE QUESTION IS, DID HE GET NOTICE FOR THE THINGS HE WAS THEN TERMINATED FOR? LIKE THAT, THAT'S THE QUESTION.
RIGHT? I WE UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.
I GET THAT YOU'RE SAYING THE PRE TERMINATION NOTICE IS THE ONE THEY HAVE TO WEIGH.
BUT LET'S TO ENSURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RELEVANT RULES, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ONES THAT WERE IN THE TERMINATION LETTER.
I'M, I'M JUST GONNA MOVE FORWARD AND, AND THE CHAIR'S RULING IS AT THE OBJECTION SUSTAINED.
AND ASK YOU TO MOVE ON TO THE TERMINATION LETTER.
THANK, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
SO, UM, CHIEF KIMBALL, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE, UH, TERMINATION, UH, PREDETERMINATION NOTICE OR PREDETERMINATION OR TERMINATION LETTER? I THINK THEY SAY BASICALLY THE SAME THING.
I HAVE A COPY OF THE PRE-DETERMINATION NOTICE IF YOU'D LIKE TO LOOK AT IT.
YOU ASKING FOR THE PRETERM OR THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION? I, I, I, I HAVE THE PREDETERMINATION NOTICE.
I JUST, I'M GONNA READ OFF OF IT, BUT I CAN READ OFF OF NOW.
COUNSEL, ARE WE ABOUT TO DO THE SAME EXERCISE? I THINK WE, WE, WE ARE, AND THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT, THAT, THAT WE DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THIS NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT.
SO YOU'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH THE SAME RULES AGAIN? IS THAT WHAT NO, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE RULES THAT, THAT HE SAYS THAT HE, THAT THAT DID COUNT.
SO COUNSEL ON THE TERMINATION? YES SIR.
SO YOU, UM, YOU TELL MR. FLINT THAT HE WAS, UM, TERMINATED DUE TO LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 33 2530, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
SO, UM, LET'S, LET'S GO THROUGH THIS ONE.
SO CAN YOU READ ME THE BEGINNING OF THAT REVISED STATUTE AS YOU CITED IT? YES.
THE TENURE OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN REGULARLY AND PERMANENTLY INDUCTED INTO POSITIONS OF THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE SHALL BE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO KEEP READING? SURE.
HOWEVER, THE POINT AUTHORITY MAY REMOVE ANY EMPLOYEE FROM THE SERVICE OR TAKE SUCH DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS A CIRCUMSTANCE WARRANT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BELOW FOR ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
OKAY? CAN YOU GIMME THE FIRST READ THE FIRST REASON, PLEASE, SIR? UNWILLINGNESS FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER.
SO DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR NOT PERFORMING HIS DUTIES IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER? YES SIR.
SO YOU TERMINATED FOR SOMETHING THAT HE DID WHILE HE WAS OFFERED OF WORK, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO HE WAS NOT PERFORMING HIS DUTIES AT THAT TIME, WAS HE? HIS DUTIES IS TO REPORT TO DUTY AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON HIS SCHEDULED DAYS.
HE DID THAT UNSATISFACTORY, AN UNWILLINGNESS TO SHOW UP TO WORK.
SO YOU TERMINATED HIM FOR NOT SHOWING UP TO WORK ON A DAY THAT HE WAS OFF OF WORK? HE WAS OFF SICK AND WENT TO WORK AT ANOTHER LOCATION.
BUT YOU WHAT, BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU TERMINATING HIM FOR NOT PERFORMING HIS DUTIES IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER.
AND I BELIEVE WHAT YOU TOLD ME WAS OBJECTION.
HE'S BADGERING THE WITNESS AND GOING OVER THE SAME QUESTIONS.
'CAUSE HE'S NOT GETTING THE ANSWER HE WANTS.
SO HOW WAS MR. FLINT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT WORKING AT THE ER WAS FAILING TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER? MR. FLINT KNEW THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO REPORT TO DUTY AND HE CANNOT BE OFF SICK.
HE STATED THAT IN HIS TERMINATION HEARING, SIR.
HE CAN BE OFF SICK, BUT HE CANNOT GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE WHILE HE IS OFF ON SICK LEAVE.
AND HOW IS HE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT? I MEAN, IS THERE A RULE THAT TELLS HIM THAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO REPORT TO DUTY AS SICK LEAVE, BUT IS THERE A RULE THAT YOU SAID THAT HE WENT, HE'S WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE HE WENT TO THE ER AND WORKED A SHIFT OR SOME SHIFTS? IS THERE A RULE THAT TELLS HIM THAT HE CANNOT, THAT GOING TO THE ER IS FAILING TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER? I CANNOT PROVIDE YOU WITH A WRITTEN RULE.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE A RULE FOR THAT.
AND THAT RULE WAS NOT IN EITHER OF THE NOTICES THAT YOU GAVE HIM, WAS IT? NO, SIR.
[01:50:02]
SO MR. FLINT SUPPOSED TO, IT'S, HE'S EXPECTED TO KNOW OF A SPECIFIC RULE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW OF YOURSELF, CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? HE'S BEEN TOLD AND HE SAID IN HIS TERMINATION HEARING HE WAS SUPPOSED, HE KNOW HE WAS DOING WRONG AND NO.UH, WELL, WE'LL TALK TO MR. FRONT ABOUT WHAT HE SAID IN HIS TERMINATION HEARING, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, HE'S EXPECTED TO KNOW OF A RULE THAT YOU CAN'T PROVIDE RIGHT HERE TO THIS BOARD.
UH, I BELIEVE IF YOU LOOK IN THE JOINT STIPULATIONS, IT SAYS THAT HE STATED HE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY DEFRA THE DEPARTMENT, BUT ADMITTED THAT WORKING IN THE ER AND DID TECHNICALLY VIOLATE THE RULES.
THAT WAS THE RULE THAT THEY TOLD HIM IN THE TERMINATION HEARING, NOT THAT THE RULE THAT THEY GAVE HIM NOTICE OF BEFORE THE TERMINATION HEARING, WHICH VIOLATES DUE PROCESS, CORRECT? I, WELL THAT I'LL JUST, THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO HER OBJECTION.
YOU STIPULATE AND THEN WE PREPARE FOR THE HEARING.
ALRIGHT, UH, CHIEF, COULD YOU READ, UH, NUMBER TWO, THE DELIBERATE OMISSION OF ANY ACT? THAT IS, IT WAS HIS DUTY TO PERFORM.
SO DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR THE DELIBERATE OMISSION OF ANY ACT THAT IT WAS HIS DUTY TO PERFORM? YES.
AND WHICH ACT WAS THAT AGAIN, SIR? HE WAS SCHEDULED TO COME TO WORK.
HE WAS TOO STRESSED TO COME TO WORK AND WHILE OFF ON SICK LEAVE WENT AND WORKED A SECOND JOB.
I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS HIS DUTY TO REPORT TO, TO WORK.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS NOT SCHEDULED TO, TO COME TO WORK.
WAS HE OFF ON STRESS LEAVE OR WAS HE SCHEDULED TO COME TO WORK? HE WAS OFF ON STRESS LEAVE.
SO WHAT DELIBERATE OMISSION OR ACT THAT IT WAS HIS DUTY TO PERFORM, DID YOU TERMINATE HIM FOR 'CAUSE MR. FLINT KNEW THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AT WORK AND IF HE WAS AT WORK, IF HE WAS OFF ON STRESS LEAVE OR SICK LEAVE, IT'S NOT STRESS LEAVE, IT'S SICK LEAVE.
HOW CAN YOU GO WORK AT ANOTHER PLACE AND DRAW AN INCOME? THAT'S FRAUD.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S NO RULE THAT TELLS HIM THAT, THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO THIS BOARD A WRITTEN RULE? NO, SIR.
AND NO RULE, NO WRITTEN RULE THAT WAS ON ANY OF THE NOTICES THAT YOU GAVE HIM, CORRECT? NO WRITTEN RULE.
WHEN HE IS REFERRING TO THE RULES, DOES HE MEAN THE RULES THAT HE'S CITING? HE'S MAKING HIM STATE A RULE OR STATE LAW AND ASKING IF HE VIOLATED IT.
AND THEN HE'S SAYING, BUT THERE'S NO RULE.
I GUESS HE NEEDS A LOCAL RULE THAT DUPLICATES THE STATE LAW.
UH, SO HIS OWN QUESTION IS, UH, LAW CONFLICTING WITH, HE'S ASKING HIM ABOUT A RULE.
HE'S SAYING HOW DID HE VIOLATED, AND THEN HE'S SAYING THERE'S NO RULE.
AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S IN STATE LAW, MS. GALE, THAT'S A BAD YES.
THAT'S WHAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S WRITTEN DOWN 2,500 AND THE THINGS THAT HE'S LISTING AND ASKING HIM ARE STATE LAW.
YEAH, I GUESS HE'S ASKING HIM IF THERE IS A LOCAL RULE THAT DUPLICATES THE STATE LAW AND THAT ANSWER AS A CHIEF CORRECTLY ANSWERED IS NO.
BUT IF THERE IS NO RULE, MEANING NONE WHATSOEVER, THEN WE'RE REFERRING BACK TO STATE LAW, WHICH WE ALLEGE HE VIOLATE.
I I'LL ATTEMPT TO RESPOND TO THAT.
HOWEVER, I I CAN'T, I I'M SIMPLY SEARCHING FOR A RULE THAT MR. FLINT SUPPOSEDLY VIOLATED THAT HE WAS GIVEN NOTICE THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY VIOLATED.
NOW IF, IF, IF CHIEF KIMBALL CAN CAN COME UP WITH THAT RULE AND THEN SHOW ME IN THE NOTICES WHERE HE PROVIDED THAT RULE, THEN HE MAY BE, MAYBE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A VIOLATION OF MR. FLINT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS, BUT THIS IS A DUE PROCESS ISSUE AND THE THESE ARE PENAL STATUTES.
THESE STATUTES HAVE TO BE STRICTLY, STRICTLY CONFORMED TO ALRIGHT.
AND THE CONSTITUTION, WE CAN'T PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE CONSTITUTION FOR SURE.
SO THE, THE WHERE ALL OF THIS IS GOING IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTICE THAT MR. FLINT WAS GIVEN MET HIS DUE PROCESS THROUGH THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS TO GIVE NOTICE AS TO WHAT HE'S DEFENDING AGAINST.
SO FAR THEY'VE GIVEN US VERY VAGUE STATE LAWS.
AND I'M JUST ASKING, IS THERE A RULE THAT SAYS MR. FLINT CANNOT GO TO THE WORK AT THE ER WHILE HE'S OFF ON STRESS LEAVE? AND DID YOU GIVE US NOTICE OF IT? SO, UH, SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE A LITTLE CONVOLUTED.
I THINK WE CAN MAKE THE QUESTIONS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECT.
AND COUNSEL, I THINK WE'RE GETTING CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON EACH OBJECTION.
I THINK WE CAN JUST MAKE THE OBJECTION.
WE HAVE, I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN DIRECTIVE OR DIRECTIVE ORDERS GIVE OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT WHILE YOU'RE OFF SICK.
WHAT YOU CAN DO, WHAT YOU CAN'T
[01:55:01]
DO.SO TO HAVE IT ON WRITING, IT'S NOT THERE.
IS IT VERBAL? AND I BELIEVE MR. FLINT SHOWED THAT IN HIS PREDETERMINATION HEARING WHEN HE STATED HE KNEW HE VIOLATED THE RULE AND JUST FOR THE BOARD'S PURPOSE, THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT HE SAID IN HIS, IN HIS HEARING.
WE'LL GET, WE'LL GET TO THAT IN HIS TESTIMONY THOUGH.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MOVE ON, PLEASE.
COULD YOU, UM, READ NUMBER THREE FOR US PLEASE? WHICH ON MY COPY SAYS NUMBER TWO AGAIN, BUT NUMBER THREE, THE COMMISSION OR ADMISSION OF ANY ACT TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SERVICE OR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR POLICY.
AND I'M GONNA ASK THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN.
DID YOU, DID YOU, DID YOU TERMINATE MR. FLINT FOR THE COMMISSION OR OMISSION OF ANY ACT TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE OR CONTRACT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR POLICY? YES.
AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT IS AGAIN, WORKING AT THE ER WHILE HE WAS ON STRESS LEAVE BEING PAID BY TWO PLACES AT ONE TIME? YES, SIR.
BEING PAID BY TWO PLACES AT ONE TIME.
UM, AGAIN, ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE US ANY RULE THAT SHOWS THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE WORKING AT THE ER WHILE HE'S ON STRESS LEAVE? ANY COUNSEL? YOU ASKING FOR COUNSEL FOR CLARIFICATION? YOU'RE ASKING FOR LEMME OBJECT AGAIN.
I DOES HE MEAN OTHER THAN THE ONE HE JUST ASKING ABOUT? CORRECT.
ARE YOU ASKING FOR LIKE A-B-R-F-D RULE OR ANY, I'M I'M LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THAT MR. FRONT WAS GIVEN NOTICE THAT HE VIOLATED, WHICH IS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
SO, SO THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THERE, YOU'RE ASKING HIM ABOUT A RULE, HE'S SAYING HE VIOLATED, HE'S EXPLAINING WHY, AND THEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL RULE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
I'M, I'M ASKING HIM HOW MR. FLINT'S SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT GOING TO THE ER VIOLATES THIS SPECIFIC OF THESE VERY VAGUE BROAD RULES.
SO SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF CHIEF IS THERE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT RULE THAT SAYS ACT, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING.
AND THEN YOU CAN GO TO, IS THERE SOME TYPE OF STATE LAW? IS THERE SOME TYPE OF, SO THAT WAY THE RECORD'S CLEAR AND WE CAN STOP THESE OBJECTIONS.
CHIEF, I I LIKE THAT QUESTION CHIEF.
AND YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION.
IS THERE A BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT RULE THAT SAYS THAT MR. FLINT SHOULD NOT BE WORKING AT THE ER WHILE HE'S ON STRESS LEAVE? IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ONE? NO, SIR.
AND YOU DON'T KNOW OF ANY STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT SPECIFICALLY, THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOU CANNOT DO THAT, THAT YOU CAN CAN'T WORK AT ANOTHER JOB WHILE ON STRESS LEAVE? NO, SIR.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OUT THERE.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU DIDN'T GIVE HIM NOTE IN ANY OF THESE NOTICES? YOU DIDN'T PUT ANY SPECIFIC RULE THERE? CORRECT, SIR.
WELL I PLAN ON GOING THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE, BUT SINCE I CAN TELL THAT EVERYBODY KIND OF GETS THE POINT, I'M GONNA KEEP ON, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA MOVE FORWARD HERE.
CAN WE READ, UM, UH, WELL, I, I'LL I'LL ASK YOU THIS.
THE NEXT ONE SAYS THE, UH, INSUBORDINATION, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GONNA TELL ME THAT MR. FLINT WAS BEING INSUBORDINATE.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A RULE THAT SAYS THAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT HE WAS BEING INSUBORDINATE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND, UM, I TOLD MY SUPER, I'VE BEEN TOLD MY SUPERIOR OFFICERS BEFORE WHAT TO DO.
WHEN DID YOU TELL MR. FLINT THAT? I SAID IT HAD TO BE COME FROM ME.
WE HAVE A CHAIN OF COMMAND IN OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO WHENEVER MR. FLINT WENT OFF ON STRESS LEAVE, WAS UH, HE GIVEN, UM, INSTRUCTION AS TO WHAT HE SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO? I'M NOT AWARE IF HE WAS OR WAS NOT, SIR.
YOU DIDN'T GIVE HIM INSTRUCTION TO THAT, DID YOU? NO, SIR.
AND JUST, JUST SO, SO I'M CLEAR HERE AGAIN, MR. FLINT IS EXPECTED TO KNOW OF A SPECIFIC RULE THAT YOU, YOURSELF CANNOT BRING TO THIS BOARD, CANNOT PROVIDE YOU A WRITTEN RULE? NO, SIR.
AND SINCE THIS RULE ISN'T HERE, IT'S, IT'S JUST NOT AVAILABLE TO GIVE MR. FLINT CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS NOTICE OF THE RULE THAT HE'S ACCUSED OF VIOLATING.
UM, UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR CHIEF KIMBALL.
I WILL RESERVE MY RIGHT TO CALL HIM AGAIN IN OUR, UH, CASE IN CHIEF.
ANY REDIRECT, MS. GILLO? UM, YES, I, UM,
[02:00:08]
IN ORDER TO ASK THIS QUESTION, I'M REFERRING TO LOUISIANA ADVISED STATUTE 33 TO AND 2181.UH, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS IT.
THEY'RE HANDY, ARE ABLE TO PULL UP SO THAT THEY CAN READ IT.
YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE FIRST PART OF THE FIREFIGHTER BILL OF RIGHTS, CORRECT? RIGHT, THE INVESTIGATION PART? YES.
AND I'LL LOOK DOWN AS TO, UM, I'M GONNA SEND IT TO CHIEF KIMBALL ON HIS CELL PHONE SO HE CAN LOOK AT IT.
I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY UNFORTUNATELY TO, TO GIVE IT TO ALL OF Y'ALL.
WE'RE, WE'RE GENERALLY, UH, FAMILIAR AND, UH, MR. FLINT, HOPEFULLY YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION? I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO IT, BUT OKAY.
CHIEF, DID YOU GET THAT TEXT AND WERE YOU ABLE TO OPEN IT? YES MA'AM.
AND LET'S LOOK DOWN AT, OKAY, B ONE SAYS, WHENEVER A FIRE EMPLOYEE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION, THE FOLLOWING MINI MINIMUM STANDARD SHALL APPLY.
WOULD YOU READ NUMBER ONE, PRIOR TO COMMENCING A FORMAL INVESTIGATION OF A FIRE EMPLOYEE? THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY SHALL NOTIFY THE EMPLOYEE IN WRITING OF THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND IDENTIFY AN, AN AUTHORITY OF THE PERSONS CONDUCTING SUCH INVESTIGATION AND THE SPECIFIC CHARGES OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED, BEING, GO AHEAD AND READ.
NUMBER TWO, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, THE FIRE EMPLOYEE BEING INVESTIGATED SHALL BE INFORMED IN WRITING AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY INTERROGATION OF THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION, OF THE IDENTITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE PERSONS CONDUCTING SUCH INVESTIGATION OF THE IDENTITY OF ALL PERSONS PRESENT DURING SUCH INTERROGATION.
AND OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGES OR VIOLATIONS BEING INVESTIGATED.
THE FIRE EMPLOYEE SHALL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE NOTES.
I OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCE OF THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN INTERROGATION.
THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN ABOUT DUE PROCESS.
AND ANYWHERE IN THERE, DOES IT SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED IN THE, IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE THAT IT MAY BE CONDUCTED ONLY FOR SINCE DAYS? NO, MA'AM.
AND WHAT HE READ YOU IN THE HANDBOOK, IS THAT UNDERSTOOD TO BE SUGGESTED? TO ME IT IS TO HANDBOOK OF GUIDANCE.
BUT THE FACT THAT IT HAS TO STATE 60 DAYS IS NOT IN THE LAW AS TO WHAT YOU SEE, CORRECT? NO, IT IS NOT.
UM, NOW REFER TO YOUR NOTICE OF TERMINATION, THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THE SECOND PAGE, IS THAT YOUR SUMMARY OF HOW HIS ACTIONS VIOLATE THE STATE STATUTE? MA'AM, WAS YOU SPEAKING OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH? I'M SORRY, I MISSED THAT.
THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE SECOND PAGE.
AS THE FIRE CHIEF OF, IS THAT YOUR SUMMARY OF HOW THE, HIS ACTIONS VIOLATE THE STATE LAW? CORRECT.
[02:05:02]
OKAY, LET, LET'S TALK ABOUT SICK LEAVE.YOU'RE BEING PAID BECAUSE YOU'RE SICK.
YOU ARE BEING PAID TO STAY HOME AND RECUPERATE, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS WORKING AT THE LADY OF THE LAKE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WHEN SIMILAR EMPLOYEES HAVE DONE SIMILAR THINGS, IS IT TRUE THAT AUDITORS HAVE WRITTEN THEM UP FOR THEFT OF THE CITY PARISH TIME AND LEAVE? UH, OB I'LL OBJECT TO THIS QUESTION.
IT'S, I MEAN, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION TO ANY OF THIS COMING IN WITH THAT.
WELL, HE CALLS IT DOUBLE DIPPING.
AND EXPLAINS THAT YOU CAN'T BE, THE CHIEF DOES CALL IT DOUBLE-DIPPING.
AND IT EXPLAINS THAT YOU CAN'T BE PAID TO, TO BE ON SICK LEAVE BY US AND WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT THAT IS DOUBLE-DIPPING.
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW.
SO I'M JUST ASKING THE CHIEF TO EXPLAIN THAT THAT'S WHY IT'S RELEVANT.
I I THINK TO THE EXTENT, SO THE SECOND TIME YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, I DON'T, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT OTHER EMPLOYEES IN PAST BEHAVIORS, BUT I THINK TO THE EXTENT YOU'RE GOING DOWN THAT ROUTE, I THINK THAT IS IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION YOU JUST ASKED WAS FAIR.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE MS. GI? YES.
UH, I'M JUST ASKING THE CHIEF'S UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY IT'S IMPROPER TO GET SICK LEAVE AND THAT'S FAIR.
GET PAID FOR SICK LEAVE THAN WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SO MAYBE THAT'S A BETTER QUESTION.
WHY IS THAT IMPROPER? CAN YOU REWORD THAT? JUST TELL ME ONE MORE TIME.
I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M TOO, BUT I'LL GIVE IT A TRY.
I'M ASKING WHY IS, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHY IT'S IMPROPER, YOU PAID SICKLY YET TO BE WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE? WELL, WHEN YOU'RE GETTING PAID, WHICH IS A HUGE FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE MEN AND WOMEN IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, WHEN THEY'RE OFF SICK, THEY WERE, THEY CAN STILL CONTINUE TO GET PAID.
AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THERE FOR, TO TAKE CARE OF THE MEN AND WOMEN, UH, WHILE THEY'RE OFF SICK.
BUT FOR YOU TO BE OFF SICK AND THEN GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE IS WHY I DID WHAT I DID.
AND YOUR QUESTION ON THE AUDITORS, MA'AM, I, I CAN'T SPEAK ON THAT.
I KNOW WE, WE'VE HAD SOME THINGS LIKE THAT HAPPEN IN THE PAST AND I CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF THAT.
AND, AND I WAS WRONG 'CAUSE IT PROBABLY WASN'T DURING YOUR, UM, TENURE RIGHT BEFORE YES.
SO I'LL WITHDRAW THAT, THAT PORTION OF THE QUESTION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, UH, TO MR. KIM? CHIEF KIMBLE, I'M SORRY, CHIEF IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATION HAVE, UM, OTHER FIREMEN BEEN ALLOWED TO, UM, USE SICK LEAVE AND WORK EXTRA AS ANOTHER JOB? SO I DO KNOW THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS, UH, TOOK OFF SICK AND WENT AND WORKED PART-TIME AND THEY WERE, UH, APPROACHED AND RECEIVED DISCIPLINE FOR IT IN THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION.
BUT THERE WAS NEVER GRANTED PERMISSION TO DO IT BY THE CHIEF.
CHIEF, UH, I KNOW SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE LIKE RULES ABOUT SICK LEAVE WHERE THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T LEAVE YOUR HOUSE AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
DO, DO Y'ALL HAVE A SIMILAR, UH, SET OF RULES? NOT AT THIS TIME.
IT'S NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED TO THAT AT THIS TIME.
I KNOW WE DO THINGS BASED ON RULES, REGULATION LAWS, BUT ANYBODY THAT EVER WORKS FOR THE STATE ESPECIALLY KNOWS THAT YOU OFF ON SICK LEAVE.
YOU CAN'T GO WORK SOMEPLACE ELSE.
AND MR. MR. ROBINSON, I DIDN'T, UH, SUBPOENA OR GET WITNESSES, BUT OF THE 584 MEMBERS OF THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, THEY'RE GONNA COME IN HERE AND TELL YOU YOU WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK.
BRINGING IN EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS HEARSAY.
584 PEOPLE ARE GONNA SAY IT'S HEARSAY.
HE'S RIGHT THAT HE CAN'T SPEAK TO EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE DEPARTMENT.
[02:10:01]
YOU GOTTA SUSTAIN THAT PART OF IT, I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE AN ERROR THAT GETS, UH, UH, REVERSED CHIEF CAN'T SPEAK TO CORRECT EVERYBODY ELSE.THAT PART, YOUR, YOUR COMMENT SUSTAINED.
UH, MOVE ON MR. FLINT, PLEASE, SIR.
WELL, I MEAN, WE, WE, AND WE HAVEN'T GONE INTO ANYTHING IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF AS TO WHY THIS ALL HAPPENED.
WHEN YOU FINISH WITH CHIEF NO, THIS IS ACTUALLY WITNESS, I'M SORRY, THIS WAS, SO HE'S DONE IF Y'ALL DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
AND, AND AGAIN, I I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CALL CHIEF BACK UP IN OUR CASE IN CHIEF.
WELL, IT IT BE BEFORE THE BOARD TAKES A BREAK.
I, I CAN I TAKE THIS, UM, OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION VIOLATES MR. FLINT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS PROVIDED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 10, SECTION EIGHT OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION.
IT ALSO VIOLATES BY STATUTE 33 2500 D, WHICH IS A PENAL STATUTE THAT REQUIRES STRICT COMPLIANCE.
AND I CAN GO INTO WHY I BELIEVE THAT THIS NOTICE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.
AND I, I, I'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT QUICKLY IF, IF THE BOARD WOULD, WOULD, WOULD LISTEN TO THAT.
SO, BOARD, WHAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, UH, COUNSEL IS MOVING FOR THE EQUIVALENT OF A DIRECTED VERDICT, RIGHT? IT'S A PROPER MOTION.
AND WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT, UH, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR, MR. FLINT WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER NOTICE.
UM, SO HE'S CERTAINLY WELCOME TO ARGUE IT.
MS. OD IS, UH, YOU KNOW, EL A, UH, ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT.
BUT I, I THINK MY ADVICE IS GONNA BE TO DENY THE MOTION AT THIS POINT BASED ON CAN I AT LEAST, CAN I AT LEAST GIVE MY REASONS FOR THE MOTION BEFORE YOU DENY? CERTAINLY MAKE, MAKE THE RECORD.
SO, SO DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT MR. FLINT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO A HEARING TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE SPECIFIC CHARGES THAT ARE BROUGHT AGAINST HIM.
OKAY? AND IN ORDER TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT HE MUST FIRST BE NOTIFIED OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGES IN WRITING AND IN TIME TO MOUNT A DEFENSE, THESE CHARGES HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC.
THERE'S A STACK OF CASE LAW ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT SAYS THESE CHARGES HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC.
AND AS YOU'VE HEARD, THIS NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE IN JUST ABOUT EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.
IT WAS LIKELY PROVIDED TO MR. FLINT AFTER THE START OF THE INVESTIGATION.
OKAY? IT WAS, IT, IT, IT LISTED A DECEPTIVE STARTING DATE OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT WE KNOW IS NOT ACCURATE SINCE THE INVESTIGATION REPORT SHOWS THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS WELL UNDERWAY.
THE DAY BEFORE THE NOTICE SAYS THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS GONNA START THE NOTICE DID NOT TELL MR. FRANK THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED IN 60 DAYS AND IT DIDN'T GIVE HIM A DATE FOR THE 60TH DAY.
SO WE HAD NO IDEA HOW LONG THIS INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY LASTED OR WHEN THE INVESTIGATION WAS SUPPOSED TO END.
HE WAS TERMINATED ON GOOD FRIDAY, WHICH WAS ALMOST 60 DAYS AFTER THE, THE LETTER WAS GIVEN TO HIM.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS INVESTIGATION STARTED.
MR. FLINT WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS AT ANY TIME DURING THE INVESTIGATION.
THE NOTICE DID NOT LIST THE SPECIFIC RULE THAT MR. FLINT SUPPOSEDLY BROKE, BUT INSTEAD IT LISTED SEVERAL GENERAL RULES THAT CHIEF KIMBALL ADMITTED THAT HE DIDN'T BREAK.
AND THAT CHIEF KIMBALL TRIED TO CIRCLE BACK AROUND AND SAY, YEAH, HE, HE BROKE THIS AND, AND THIS AND THIS BECAUSE OF THESE VAGUE RULES THAT EVEN HE COULDN'T NAME FOR US.
BUT HE'S EXPECTING MR. FLINT TO KNOW THESE RULES SINCE THE NOTICE DID NOT ACCURATELY NOTIFY MR. FLINT OF THE START DATE OF INVESTIGATION OR THE 60 DAY DEADLINE.
AND SINCE IT DIDN'T GIVE HIM ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE RULE, WHICH HE SUPPOSEDLY VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO MOUNT A DEFENSE THAT A HEARING WAS UNDERMINED AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED.
SO WE ASK THAT THIS BOARD DECLARE THIS ENTIRE PROCEEDING, INCLUDING THE TERMINATION AND ABSOLUTE NUITY AND AWARD BACK PAY.
MS. GIA, UH, BRIEFLY, I THINK WE'VE PUT OUR OBJECTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THAT IN THE RECORD.
UH, NUMBER ONE, THINGS THAT HE'S CITING, UH, FROM THE STATE EXAMINER'S MANUAL OR SUGGESTIVE AND NOT REQUIRED.
UH, SECONDLY, AS TO THE NOTICE BEING TOO BROAD, UH, I GUESS HE'S SAYING THAT WE'RE GIVING HIM TOO MUCH NOTICE ON THINGS THAT WERE NOT IN THE ULTIMATE TERMINATION LETTER.
TERMINATION LETTER IS VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHY THE CHIEF BELIEVES HE'S, UH, BREAKING EACH ONE OF THOSE STATUTES.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS SO SPECIFIC THAT IT IS DOWN TO THE SPECIFIC DAYS THAT
[02:15:01]
HE WORKED AT THE LADY AT THE LAKE.SO CERTAINLY HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE'S BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT.
UH, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THE NOTICE IS SUFFICIENT AND MORE, MORE THAN NECESSARY, UH, FOR HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO BE FULFILLED, ENTERTAIN EXECUTIVE, WE RIGHT.
BUT THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THE BOARD GO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE MOTION WE CAN DO THAT.
UH, BOARD MEMBERS AND LADIES, BOARD MEMBERS AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW AND ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS AS I'VE STATED BEFORE.
SO WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I MOVE BY MR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SHALL WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND THERE.
BOARD STAND EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO RECONVENE? THE TION? MOTION TO RECONVENE MOVED BY MR. RICK TO I SECOND.
SECOND BY MR. LEMON THAT WE RECONVENE.
MR. RICKS PRESENT? GOTTA BE YES OR NO ON THE MOTION? YES.
WE ARE BACK IN REGULAR SESSION WHILE IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
NO MOTIONS WERE MADE, NO VOTES WERE TAKEN.
SO WE ARE READY TO PROCEED MR. GI OUT WITH THIS.
MS. GI, MS. GIT, UH, ARE YOU GUYS RESTING SUBJECT TO REBUTTAL? UM, THERE IS, UH, TWO ISSUES.
THE FIRST IS THAT Y'ALL HAD ASKED US TO LOOK FOR A RULE, YOU KNOW, IF WE KEEP ON LOOKING, WE FIND EVENTUALLY.
UM, SO THE CHIEF DOES HAVE, WE DO HAVE A COPY OF SOMETHING THAT'S UM, RELATED THAT WE WANTED TO SHARE.
UM, DO Y'ALL HAVE COPIES? UM, NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
DO WE HAVE COPIES OF WHAT EXACTLY? NO, NO.
I WAS ASKING MY GUYS, OH, IF THEY HAD THE COPIES TO HAND TO Y'ALL.
I DO, BUT THERE'S SOME WORDS CUT OFF AND SO I'M WAITING FOR MY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO BRING THE RULE HERE.
HOWEVER, I DO HAVE IT AND I'LL GIVE YOU WHAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW.
IT JUST DOESN'T CONTAIN THE FULL LIKE WORD ON THERE.
IF I UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE GONNA ASK, UH, CHIEF KIMBALL SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
I, I, YES, I I THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO Y'ALL'S QUESTION ABOUT IS THERE A RULE? OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO I GUESS I'D RECALL THE CHIEF TO ANSWER WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO, WITH COUNCILOR FLINT'S MOTION TO FINISH THAT OR TO DEAL WITH IT? SURE, YEAH, WE DO.
SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEFER, UH, ON ANY, UH, DIRECT RULING UNTIL AFTER WE'VE HEARD ALL EVIDENCE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? IS THAT THE CORRECT WAY TO PUT IT? DEFERRING THE MOTION TO THE MARRIAGE.
THAT WILL BE DEFER THE MOTION BY COUNSEL ON THE MERITS.
MS. GI, YOU HAD A QUESTION, MS. GIT? I'M SORRY, I WAS ON MUTE.
UM, CHIEF KIM, I BELIEVE THAT YOU'VE LOCATED RULE 2.9.
AND CAN YOU TELL ME HOW IT RELATES TO THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT THE BOARD WAS ASKING ABOUT? YES, IT RE PERTAINS TO THIS.
THE TITLE IS SIX SLIP REQUIREMENTS
[02:20:01]
2.9 AND THE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT SLIPS OF THIS NATURE SHALL BE TURNED IN WITHIN 36 HOURS.IF AN EMPLOYEE CALLS IN SICK ON THE WEEKEND, THE SLIP CAN BE TURNED IN NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
HOWEVER, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL THE EMPLOYEE RETURN TO WORK WITHOUT THE SLIP REPORTING FOR DUTY.
THE EMPLOYEE IS TO REMAIN AT HOME FOR THE ENTIRE 24 HOUR PERIOD.
SHOULD THE EMPLOYEE VISIT THE DOCTOR OF PHARMACY, IT SHALL BE INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO NOTIFY THE ASSISTANT CHIEF ON DUTY BEFORE LEAVING THEIR RESIDENCE.
AND YOU INITIALLY DID NOT THINK OF THAT RULE BECAUSE THAT TALKS ABOUT STAYING AT HOME 24 HOURS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
BUT THAT'S THE RULE AS IT AS OPPOSED TO ONE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T GO TO WORK, THERE'S ONE THAT SAYS YOU GOT GOTTA STAY ON 24 HOURS.
SO WE WE'RE, WE WILL PR THAT IN RESPONSE TO, UM, THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS ON THE MATTER OR ASK IT TO BE ENTERED IN IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S.
ANY OBJECTION BY MR. FLINT? NO OBJECTION.
THAT RULE IS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.
SO IF Y'ALL, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAD ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, IF NOT, NO.
WE HAVE THE OTHER, UH, WITNESSES THAT ARE AVAILABLE IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
IF YOU HAVE CROSS ON RULE, I'D CERTAINLY LIKE TO HAVE SOME CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS, THIS RULE.
CHIEF, YOU'VE GIVEN US OR GIVEN THIS BOARD, UH, RULE 2.9.
POINT FOUR 0.1, WHICH IS A SIX SICK SLIP REQUIREMENT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THIS IS THE, UM, THIS IS THE RULE THAT YOU, UM, CLAIM THAT YOU TERMINATED MR. FLINT FOR VIOLATING.
WE DIDN'T, WE DID NOT PUT THAT IN THE, IN THE ALLEGATION, SIR.
BUT THIS IS THE, YOU, YOU TERMINATED MR. FLINT FOR VIOLATING RULE 2.9 0.41 FOR SIX SLIP REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? HE WAS VI HE WAS TERMINATED.
WE DID NOT
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I OBJECT EXPLICIT TO ATTORNEY ANSWERING THE QUESTION FOR THE WITNESS.
THE WITNESS CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THAT HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
LET'S, UNLESS THERE'S A FORM OF OF MY QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE OBJECTION, MS. GILL? EXCUSE ME.
WHAT'S THE OBJECTION? THE OBJECTION IS THAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD'S QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A RULE THAT INFORMED HIM OF THIS.
THAT WE LOCATED A RULE PURSUANT TO THE BOARD'S REQUEST.
NO ONE SAID IT WAS IN THE TERMINATION LETTER OR THAT THAT WAS A REASON THAT WE LIST OR THAT A RULE THAT WE USED TO TERMINATE HIM WITH.
UM, CAN I GET A QUE AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE, UH, CHIEF KIMBALL TERMINATED MR. FLINT DUE TO A VIOLATION OF RULE 2.9 0.41? THE CHIEF CAN ANSWER.
YEAH, SO AGAIN, I OVERLOOKED THAT PART 'CAUSE IT WAS UNDER SIX SLIP REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE REASON HE WAS TERMINATED WAS 'CAUSE HE WAS AGAIN, SIR, WHILE OFF ON SICK LEAVE WORKING AT ANOTHER PLACE.
OKAY, SO IS THAT A YES OR A NO? AGAIN, SIR, HE WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I DID NOT ISSUE HIM DISCIPLINE FOR THE SIX SLIP REQUIREMENT.
I'LL JUST OBJECT TO THAT RESPONSE AS NONRESPONSIVE.
UH, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION.
UM, IT SAYS HERE THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS TO REMAIN AT HOME FOR THE ENTIRE 24 HOUR PERIOD.
WHAT 24 HOUR PERIOD ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT THERE? HE'S OFF SIX.
ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO STAY AT HOME OR CALL THE ASSISTANT CHIEF'S OFFICE IF HE NEEDS TO GO TO THE DOCTOR OR PHARMACY? OKAY.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE WENT TO THE DOCTOR OR THE PHARMACY WITHIN SOME 24 HOUR PERIOD THAT MM-HMM,
SO, UH, YOU, YOU DO UNDERSTAND OR, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. FLINT WAS OFF OF WORK FOR MORE THAN A A 24 HOUR PERIOD, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
[02:25:01]
IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS 24 HOUR PERIOD THAT THE RULE SPEAKS ABOUT MIGHT BE FOR FOLKS THAT MAYBE TOOK ONE DAY OFF OF WORK? IT STATES THAT 24 HOURS, SIR, IF YOU'RE ALL SICK, EVEN ON YOUR DAYS IN BETWEEN, YOU'RE OFF ON SICK LEAVE AND YOU JUST HAVE TO STAY HOME FOR 24 HOURS, YOU'RE SICK, SIR.YOU'RE TOO SICK TO COME TO WORK.
HOW CAN YOU GO DO ANYTHING ELSE? DO DO, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS RULE TO READ THAT IF YOU ARE OFF ON SICK LEAVE THAT YOU MUST REMAIN AT HOME FOR A 24 HOUR PERIOD OR NO? UNLESS, UNLESS YOU'RE FORGETTING, UNLESS PART YOU NEED TO GO TO THE DOCTOR OR A PHARMACY AND IT SHALL BE INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO CALL THE ASSISTANT CHIEF'S OFFICE.
OKAY? SO OTHER THAN THAT, YOU AGREE WITH ME? YES, AS LONG AS THEY CALL THE ASSISTANT CHIEF'S OFFICE, BUT, BUT THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT ON THAT IT CLEAR THIS IS ONLY ONE CERTIFICATE WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR A ONE DAY ILLNESS.
IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE YES SIR.
FOR THE 24 HOURS, FIRST TO ONE DAY YOU COULD SAY, YES SIR, WE DO THAT.
SO WHEN YOU GO OFF, IF IT'S JUST ONE DAY, THEN YOU GOTTA HAVE A RETURN DATE TO RETURN TO WORK TO BE FIT FOR DUTY.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ABOUT THIS RULE.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR, I'M SORRY? DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE OTHER, UH, FIRE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HERE OR ANY OR THE CHIEF OR ANYBODY BEFORE THEY REST? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.
WHAT'S OUR NEXT STEP? MR. FLINT? UH, YOUR CASE? THANK YOU SIR.
UM, MR. FLINT CALLS, UM, CHIEF KIMBALL BACK TO THE STAND PLEASE.
ALRIGHT CHIEF, WE'RE GONNA LET YOU SIT DOWN EVENTUALLY.
CHIEF, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT MOST FIREFIGHTERS HAVE A SECOND JOB OR A SIDE HUSTLE OR SOMETHING THEY DO OTHER THAN JUST WORKING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? WE ALL DO.
AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT MR. FLINT HAS HAD THIS SIDE JOB, UH, AT THE ER SINCE 2020? I KNOW HE HAD IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
SO, AND, AND YOU, AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT HE'S BEEN DOING THIS, HE'S BEEN WORKING FOR BOTH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE ER FOR FOUR YEARS? YES SIR.
AND YOU, UM, YOU TESTIFIED THAT, THAT YOU TERMINATED MR. FLINT BECAUSE HIS EARNING MONEY AT BOTH THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND AT THE ER AT THE ER WAS FRAUD.
CORRECT? THE WAY I SEE IT, SIR, WHEN YOU'RE GETTING PAID TO BE AT WORK AT THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND YOU TAKE OFF SICK LEAVE AND YOU'RE RECEIVING FUNDING 'CAUSE YOU ARE ON SICK LEAVE AND YOU GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE WHILE ON SICK LEAVE, THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT.
THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF FRAUD? YES, SIR.
SO YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. FLINT COMMITTED FRAUD, SO I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT HE COMMITTED FRAUD, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT HIS DOUBLE DIPPING BY RECEIVING TWO PAYMENTS ON THE SAME TIME WHILE WORKING WAS WHILE YOU TERMINATED HIM.
NOW, AND MR. FRONT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, WAS OFF.
HE, AT THE TIME, HE WAS OFF ON STRESS LEAVE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND, AND STRESS LEAVE IS ACCRUED, IS IT NOT STRESS LEAVE? YEAH.
SO IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SICK LEAVE AND STRESS LEAVE? NO, SIR.
WELL THEN HOW CAN SICK LEAVE BE ACCRUED AND STRESS LEAVE NOT BE CONTR? WE DON'T HAVE STRESS LEAVE, SIR.
SO WHEN WE SAY STRESS LEAVE, WHICH JUST SO YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD FROM EVERYBODY AROUND THIS WHOLE CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SICK LEAVE, RIGHT? SICK LEAVE.
SO HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE TERM STRESS LEAVE? NO SIR.
YOU'VE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT? OH, OH, SOMEBODY WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT COMING UP WITH A PHRASE THAT THEY COME UP WITH? YES, SIR.
RIGHT, BUT YOU'VE HEARD OF IT AND YOU YES.
YOU'VE PROBABLY USED IT BEFORE, RIGHT? I, I'M NOT GONNA SAY I HAVE OR HAVEN'T.
IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR, OUR WAY WE GIVE PEOPLE OFF WHEN YOU'RE OFF ON LEAVE, YOU'RE OFF ON HOLIDAY, VACATION, SICK, SAME THING.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS, IF YOU'RE INJURED, YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE AND ALL OF THAT IS ACCRUED IS AN ACCRUED DEAL.
BY THE TIME FOR YOU TO COME TO WORK, YOU EARN YOUR SICK LEAVE.
SO, UM, WHEN A FIREFIGHTER LEAVES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, HE CAN BASICALLY TAKE HIS ACCRUED SICK LEAVE AND CASH IT OUT CORRECT.
HE GETS PAID A FINANCIAL BENEFIT, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
SO IF HE DOESN'T USE THE SICK LEAVE, HE GETS, HE STILL GETS PAID FOR THE SICK LEAVE UP TO A CERTAIN CAP? YES, SIR.
SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU TAKE A DAY OFF SICK OR YOU RETIRE OR LEAVE THE, THE FORCE, YOU, YOU, YOU GET THAT DATE,
[02:30:01]
THAT'S PART OF OUR RETIREMENT PLAN, RIGHT? YOU CAN USE THAT ON THE BACKEND FOR RETIREMENT PURPOSES ONLY.SO IF MR. FLINT HAD NOT BEEN OUT ON SICK LEAVE AT THAT TIME, IT'S A PRETTY GOOD BET THAT HE WAS GONNA GET PAID FOR THAT SICK LEAVE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE USED IT OR NOT, RIGHT? SAY THAT AGAIN.
SAID, HAD MR. FLINT NOT USED THAT SICK LEAVE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN THIS CASE, IT'S A GOOD BET THAT, I MEAN, OTHER THAN IF HE USED IT AT SOME OTHER TIME, BUT IT'S A GOOD BET THAT WHEN HE LEAVES THE FORCE, HE'S GONNA GET PAID FOR THAT ACCRUED SICK LEAVE, RIGHT? SOME OF IT, YES, SIR.
SO HE'S SO LIKE DOUBLE DIPPING, HE'S GETTING PAID WHETHER OR NOT HE WORKS AT THE ER, SAY ON A SATURDAY WHEN HE'S OFF OF WORK, HE'S GONNA GET PAID FOR THAT, OR IF HE TAKES A SICK DAY OR IF HE, HE, HE ACCRUES A SICK DAY.
HE'S GETTING, HE'S GETTING PAID FOR BOTH OF THEM.
WELL, THAT'S AGAIN, USED TOWARDS YOUR, ON YOUR RETIREMENT THROUGH SOME, SOME NEGOTIATION PLANS IS HOW THAT'S PUT INTO PLACE.
AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THAT THE, THE SICK LEAVE THAT MR. FLINT USED AT THIS TIME WAS HIS ACCRUED SICK LEAVE? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
UM, LEMME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY LIKE, SAY GETTING PAID TWICE, THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH THIS, RIGHT? YOU AND THAT HE'S GETTING PAID FOR BOTH, FROM, BOTH FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FROM THE ER, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR ISSUE WITH THIS WHOLE THING AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
AM I CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
LET, LET'S TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF A PERSON, SAY A FIREFIGHTER BREAKS HIS FOOT AND GOES ON SICK LEAVE.
OKAY? AND THIS FIREFIGHTER SAY, RUNS AN EBAY BUSINESS FROM HIS HOUSE AND DOES SOME WORK ON HIS EBAY BUSINESS AND HE MAKES SOME MONEY, HE'S DOUBLE DIPPING TOO, RIGHT? SO AGAIN, WE WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION SINCE IT'S COME UP, RIGHT? IT'S NEVER CROSSED MY, CROSSED MY TABLE TO SEE THIS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT LOOKS, BUT AGAIN, THAT HADN'T HAPPENED.
AND IF THE GUY, IF WE CAN PROVE THE GUY IS WORKING PART-TIME THAT HE'S BREAKING THE RULES.
OKAY? SO IF, IF YOU CAN PROVE, IF HE ADMITS I WAS WORKING IN MY EBAY BUSINESS WHILE I WAS OFF ON SICK LEAVE SITTING AT MY HOUSE, THAT HE, HE'S BREAKING THE RULES AND HE'S SUBJECT TO TERMINATION JUST LIKE MR. FLINT, RIGHT? UH, WITHOUT GOING INTO, UH, HAVING TO DO SOME INVESTIGATION ON THAT.
I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE FOR THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW.
ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA KEEP ON OBJECTING, BUT THIS LINE OF QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT.
IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE FACTS BEFORE SHE'S RIGHT, THE HYPOTHETICAL.
YOU'RE ASKING HIM A HYPOTHETICAL? YEAH.
WELL, I'M GONNA ASK ONE THAT'S NOT A HYPOTHETICAL.
LET'S SAY THAT THERE'S A PERSON OFF SICK THERE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT OTHER FOLKS ARE PAYING HIM TO DO TAXES FOR THEM.
IS HE VIOLATING? IS HE COMMITTING FRAUD OR VIOLATING THE POLICY? AGAIN, SIR, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
MM-HMM,
THERE'S BEEN NO FOUNDATION LAID THAT THERE'S ANY SAME OR SIMILAR EXAMPLE THAT CAN BE USED IN THIS MATTER.
YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE A REFERENCE TO SOMEBODY AND, AND MAKE IT RELEVANT.
MS. SO MS. GILLO, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING IF HE CAN LAY A FOUNDATION, THEN HE CAN ASK THE QUESTION.
WELL, IF HE LAID THE FOUNDATION THAT IT WAS A A, A SAME, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT HE CAN, I DON'T THINK THAT HE CAN PROVE THAT THAT SITUATION WOULD BE SAME OR SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
SO AGAIN, IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE FACTS BEFORE Y'ALL, THE FACTS ARE THAT HE WAS WORKING IN THE ER AT THE SAME TIME THAT HE WAS SICK, NOT THAT HE WAS DOING TAXES IN HOME OR SELLING ON EBAY OR WHATEVER.
I'D, I'D GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO LAY THE FOUNDATION IF HE CAN.
CAN YOU LAY A FOUNDATION? I I I THINK WE SHOULD JUST MOVE ON.
I MEAN, YES I COULD, BUT I, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO
UM, SO, UH, CHIEF KIMBALL, AFTER, AFTER YOU TALKED ABOUT IN, IN, IN YOUR, UM, IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S CASE IN CHIEF, YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS FRAUD THAT MR. FLINT, UM, SUPPOSEDLY ENGAGED IN.
I I LOOKED UP THE, THE DEFINITION OF FRAUD AND I JUST, I WANNA KNOW IF THIS IS THE FRAUD YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THE, I'VE LOOKED UP THE DEFINITION OF FRAUD AND IT SAID WRONGFUL OR CRIMINAL DECEPTION INTENDED TO RESULT IN FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL GAIN.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT DEFINITION? YES SIR.
[02:35:11]
I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAVE.ANY REDIRECT? UH, A RE UH, OR I GUESS RE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
UH, CHIEF, UH, FIRST, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT, UH, AS TO SICK LEAVE, YOU'RE ONLY PAID IF YOU HAVE A POSITIVE BALANCE ON THE BOOKS? NO, MA'AM.
UH, THROUGH STATE LAW, FIREFIGHTERS ARE COVERED FOR 365 DAYS A YEAR, UH, TO CAN RECEIVE PAY FOR THEIR SICK.
UH, AFTER THE 360 DAY, IF SOMEBODY'S OFF ON SICK, THEN THEY, UM, HAVE TO GO OFF WITHOUT PAY AND, AND ULTIMATELY LOSE THEIR JOB.
HERE IN THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, WE RECEIVE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT THAT GOES TOWARDS OUR SICK TIME.
SO SOMETIMES YOU'RE PAYING SOMEBODY ON SICK LEAVE, BUT THEIR ACCRUED LEAVE IS GONE.
THEY'RE CONTINUING TO GET A CHECK AND THEY'RE TRYING TO EARN SICK TIME.
AND SO INDIVIDUAL, SO WHAT WAS THE BALANCE AT THIS TIME THAT MR. PLIN HAD NEGATIVE 2,173 HOURS NEGATIVE IN THE SICK SYSTEM.
SO IF HE RETIRED AT THAT TIME, HE WOULD RECEIVE NO PAY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UH, WE'RE GONNA CALL KYLE FLINT TO THE STAND, PLEASE.
MR. FLINT, FIRST OF ALL, MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO THAT MIC PLEASE.
AND COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? KYLE FLINT.
AND, UH, WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN YOU WERE TERMINATED? I WAS A FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR.
WHEN DID YOU START WORKING AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT? FEBRUARY 26TH, 2001.
AND HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY OTHER CAREERS OTHER THAN AS A PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTER? NO.
HAVE YOU EVER WORKED FOR ANY OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENT SINCE YOU FINISHED ROOKIE SCHOOL? NO, SIR.
AND OTHER THAN THIS, HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST YOU BY THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT? NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.
I HAD ONE IN ROOKIE SCHOOL THAT I FOUND OUT ABOUT LATER, BUT THAT, WHAT WAS THAT? I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT IT WAS FOR, BUT I WENT TO GO TAKE THE DRIVER'S TEST AND THE LADY PULLED MY FILE TO GET SOME DATES OFF OF IT.
AND THAT'S WHEN I SAW THAT I HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP IN ROOKIE SCHOOL.
AND THIS WAS IN 2012? I THINK.
SO I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT FOR 11 YEARS.
2012 Y WELL, I WAS WRITTEN UP IN 2001 AND I DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT IT UNTIL 2012.
SO THE, UH, THE ONLY OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT WAS BACK IN ROOKIE SCHOOL, WHICH WAS 22 YEARS AGO? YES.
RIGHT, 23 YEARS AGO, CORRECT? YES.
DO YOU LIKE BEING A FIREFIGHTER? YEAH, I DO.
THAT'S, I WAS 16 WHEN I STARTED IN THE FIRE SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERING, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I WANTED TO DO.
SO IN MAY OF 2023, YOU WERE ACCUSED OF A SERIOUS CRIME THAT STARTED THIS, THIS WHOLE MESS.
AND WERE YOU FACING, UH, WHAT WAS THIS WAS A FELONY? YES, IT WAS ACTUALLY, IT WAS FACING 20 YEARS IN PRISON.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR THOUGH, FOR THE BOARD, YOU DID NOT COMMIT THIS CRIME, CORRECT? YOU WERE FALSELY ACCUSED, RIGHT? YES, I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED ACTUALLY, ON JANUARY 10TH AND MY FINAL COURT DATE, THE DA SAID THAT THERE WAS, THAT THEY, I DID NOT DO THIS.
THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF IT.
SO, AND, AND, AND, AND THE DA FOUND THAT, THAT, THAT THE ACCUSATIONS WERE A HUNDRED PERCENT FALSE AND THEY DROPPED ALL CHARGES, CORRECT? YES.
SO DID YOU CONTINUE WORKING FOR THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AFTER YOUR ARREST BACK IN MAY OF 2023? YES.
WERE YOU, WERE YOU WORKING YOUR NORMAL SHIFT? NO, I WAS PUT IN SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT AND FIRE PREVENTION.
AND WHEN WERE YOU PLACED ON SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT? UM, MAY 24TH.
THAT WAS SOON AFTER YOUR ARREST? YES, I WAS ARRESTED ON MAY 21ST.
WHAT WERE YOU DOING ON THE SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT? DATA ENTRY,
[02:40:01]
ENTERING THINGS INTO A COMPUTER.AND WHAT DID THAT, WHAT, WHAT DID YOUR DAY LOOK LIKE? UM, SO I WOULD GO TO WORK AND I WAS IN FIRE PREVENTION OFFICE AND THEY WOULD COME IN AND GET THEIR STUFF AND THEN THEY WOULD LEAVE AT SAY, NINE O'CLOCK.
AND THEN FROM NINE TO THREE 30 OR FOUR, I WAS IN THERE PRETTY MUCH BY MYSELF.
AND YOU WERE, AND AND, AND YOU SAID YOU WERE DOING FIRE SAFETY REPORTS? UM, PRE-FIRE PLANS.
BASICALLY IT'S JUST THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IN BEFORE A FIRE OR AN INCIDENT HAPPENS TO KIND OF GIVE US A LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING, STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S DATA ENTRY INTO A COMPUTER? YES.
HAVE YOU EVER DONE OFFICE WORK BEFORE IN YOUR WHOLE CAREER? NO.
SO WHAT'D YOU THINK ABOUT THIS SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT? I, I DIDN'T, IT WAS NOT MY CUP OF TEA, I GUESS I COULD SAY, BUT, UM, I MEAN, I DID AS LONG AS I COULD IN THERE.
I FELT LIKE IT WAS MONOTONOUS, I GUESS, BUT SO DID YOU HAVE ANY PRO, I MEAN, UH, TELL WERE THERE PROBLEMS WITH THIS JOB? YEAH, I MEAN, IT WAS A GOOD CHANCE TO TELL THE BOARD WHAT ABOUT THE JUDGE SITTING, SO SITTING THERE WITH THIS FALSE ALLEGATIONS, FALSE CHARGES OVER MY HEAD BY MYSELF SITTING IN THAT ROOM, IT REALLY WORKED ON ME BECAUSE I WASN'T HEARING ANYTHING FROM THE COURT SYSTEM.
AND ALL I COULD THINK ABOUT WAS THE 20 YEARS IN PRISON IF THEY CONVICTED ME SOMEHOW OF THESE CHARGES.
SO DID YOU ASK TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE ROLE THAT YOU WERE IN? I DID.
I ASKED ONE TIME AFTER BREAKFAST, I PULLED CHIEF KIMMEL TO THE SIDE AND I ASKED HIM TO PLEASE LET ME DO ANYTHING ELSE.
LEMME GO TO COMMUNICATIONS, LET ME GO HELP.
'CAUSE THEY WERE REDOING STATION 15 AT THE TIME.
LET ME DO ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES SIT IN THIS OFFICE BY MYSELF AND DO THIS.
AND I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING BACK FROM HIM.
AND THAT WAS TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE I TOOK OFF ON HIM.
SO HOW LONG DID YOU DO THIS JOB? FIVE MONTHS.
SO YOU SAT IN THIS ROOM FOR FIVE MONTHS? EVERY DAY FOR THREE MONTHS.
SO YOU SAT IN THIS ROOM FOR THREE MONTHS YES.
DOING FIRE SAFETY REPORTS? YES.
AND DID YOU, DID YOUR, DID YOU GET BETTER? WERE THINGS GETTING BETTER, THINGS GETTING WORSE? WHAT, WHAT WAS GOING ON WHILE YOU WERE SITTING? IT GOT, IT GOT TO A, I GOT TO A VERY DARK, BAD PLACE WHERE I'VE NEVER BEEN MENTALLY DURING THIS TIME I WAS STILL, YOU KNOW, SEEING MY, MY PHYSICIAN AND EVERYTHING.
BUT I, I GOT TO A POINT WHERE I HAD A, MADE A PLAN TO COMMIT SUICIDE PRETTY MUCH.
SO YOU WERE SUICIDAL AT THAT? YES, I WAS SUICIDAL BY THE END OF THE THREE MONTHS.
I WAS TO THE POINT WHERE I HAD A, I HAD A PLAN ON A DATE AND EVERYTHING.
WELL, I'M GLAD YOU DIDN'T DO THAT.
DID YOUR COWORKERS NOTICE THAT YOU HAD A PROBLEM? UM, YES.
I'VE HAD A FEW PEOPLE THAT, LET, LET ME, LET ME OBJECT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME BACKGROUND IS REL IS RELEVANT AND I TRY NOT TO OBJECT, BUT I THINK WE'RE GETTING FARFIELD AT THIS POINT.
I JUST HAVE THE BOARD KNOW THAT THIS ENTIRE CASE HAS TO DO WITH HIS MENTAL CAPA HIS MENTAL ISSUES AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH HIM AT THIS TIME.
WE'RE GONNA SHOW IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE ON THAT.
HE DIDN'T GO TO WORK AT THE ER UNDER SOME FRAUDULENT PLAN TO DEFRAUD THE ENTIRE CITY AND ALL THAT STUFF.
HE WENT TO WORK HIM TO THE ER ON, ON IN ORDER TO TRY TO HELP HIMSELF OUT AND TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST SIT BY HIMSELF.
SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW MS. GIT SAYS SHE'S TRYING LIKE AS MUCH AS SHE CAN, NOT TO OBJECT, SHE'S NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB WITH THAT.
BUT THIS ONE, HE NEEDS TO TELL HIS STORY AND HE NEEDS TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO TELL HIS STORY IN THIS SITUATION.
ALRIGHT, I'LL, I'M, I'M GONNA OVERRULE THAT OBJECTION AND, AND HOPEFULLY THOUGH YOU WILL MOVE ON AND, AND GIVE US THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THAT QUICKLY.
SO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR COWORKERS NOTICING THAT, THAT, THAT YOU HAD A PROBLEM.
DID THEY SUGGEST ANYTHING TO YOU? UM, THE DAY THAT I WENT OFF ON STRESS WAS THE DAY THAT I HAD PLANNED TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH MY OTHER PLAN.
AND ONE OF MY COWORKERS NOTICED THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT RIGHT AND I WAS NOT IN A GOOD PLACE.
AND HE WENT TO THE PERSON ACTING AS MY SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME, WHICH WAS CHIEF WILLIAMS. UM, AND CHIEF WILLIAMS WENT TO SAFETY AND THEY GOT ME IN TOUCH WITH THE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND KIND OF GOT THE BALL ROLLING TO GET ME THE HELP THAT I NEEDED TO PREVENT THE, WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IF I DIDN'T GET THE HELP.
SO DID YOU GO TO EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE?
[02:45:01]
I DID.I WENT THROUGH, UM, THE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE.
I WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, I THINK SIX DIFFERENT, UM, COUNSELING THERAPY SESSIONS AND I DID CONTINUE AFTER THAT.
DID YOU, DID YOU TELL YOUR COUNSELOR THAT YOU WERE SUICIDAL? NO, I DIDN'T.
WHY NOT? BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GET LOCKED UP AND GET PCED.
YOU THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD LOCK YOU UP IF YOU TOLD THEM? YES, YES.
AND I, I'M GONNA BE HONEST, AT THAT POINT I HAD NO, I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS GONNA DO IT OR NOT.
SO WHAT'D YOU, WHAT'D THE COUNSELOR TELL YOU TO DO? HE SAID I NEEDED TO GET HELP.
HE SAID I NEED TO GO TO MY PRIMARY CARE AND, YOU KNOW, GET WHATEVER HELP I NEEDED ALONG WITH DOING THE THERAPY AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND SO, AND SO DID YOU SEE YOUR DOCTOR, IS THAT JOEY BOWMAN? YES, I SAW DR. BOWMAN.
I, I SAW HIM RIGHT WHEN HE COULD, AS SOON AS HE COULD AFTER THAT.
BOWAN THAT YOU WERE SUICIDAL? NO, I DID NOT.
WHY NOT? SAME, SAME REASON AS I DIDN'T TELL THE THERAPIST THAT.
BOWAN PUT YOU ON STRESS LEAVE, DID HE NOT? YES.
AND I JUST HAVE THE BOARD, UM, WE'VE AS JOINT EXHIBIT OR AS OUR EXHIBITS, I'VE GOT, UM, THREE, UM, LETTERS FROM DR.
BOWAN PUTTING MR. FLINT ON, ON LEE, YOU, YOU GUYS HAVE THIS.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE AND WHAT YOU DON'T.
SO IF I, THEY HAVE ALL THE EXHIBITS, UH, THAT WERE TENDERED TO US BEFORE.
UH, MS. GUILLO, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE, UH, THREE MEDICAL NOTES? NO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE CONTAINED IN THE STIPULATIONS.
I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, BUT I WON'T OBJECT TO THEM BEING ENTERED TO THE RECORD.
AND, UM, WE, UM, WE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION, KYLE, AS TO WHAT DR.
BOWAN SAID TO YOU, AND IF IT PLEASES THE BOARD, I'M GONNA READ INTO WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE AGREED THAT DR.
JOEY BOWAN TREATED FLINT FOR MENTAL ILLNESS CAUSED BY CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS, WHICH FLINT BELIEVED WERE FALSELY LEVIED AGAINST HIM.
BOWAN REMO REMOVED FLINT FROM WORK DUE TO STRESS STARTING OCTOBER 19TH, 2023.
BOWAN ADVISED FLINT THAT THE, THAT SPENDING TIME ALONE WAS NOT GOOD FOR HIS MENTAL HEALTH AT THE TIME.
BOWAN ADVISED FLINT TO ATTEMPT TO BE IN THE COMPANY OF PEOPLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND TO AVOID BEING ALONE.
BOWAN TOLD YOU TO DO? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID.
WHERE DID YOU DO, UH, SO, SO AT THIS POINT, DR.
WERE OCTOBER 19TH, 2023, CORRECT? YES.
AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN HE TOOK YOU OFF OF WORK? UM, I TRIED MY BEST TO STAY BUSY.
UM, DID, SO WERE YOU, WERE YOU, WERE YOU GOING, WERE YOU AT HOME? WHAT WERE YOU DOING? I I WAS AT HOME AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, MY FIANCE AND THE KIDS WOULD LEAVE DURING THE DAY.
SO IT WAS NOT MUCH BETTER THAN, THAN BEING THERE.
I MEAN, I, I CUT, CUT THE GRASS.
SO YOU, YOU WERE SITTING AT HOME BY YOURSELF AT THAT POINT IN TIME? YES.
SO DID IT, DID THAT HELP YOU? NO, NO, NOT REALLY.
SO WAS THAT JUST AS BAD AS SITTING IN THE ROOM BY YOURSELF AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? YES.
SO YOU HADN'T GOTTEN ANY, LIKE, NONE, NONE OF THESE SITUATIONS GOTTEN ANY BETTER FOR YOU AT THIS POINT, CORRECT? NO.
SO DID YOU CONTINUE TO SEE DR.
AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU TO DO? HE JUST REITERATED TO BE AROUND PEOPLE.
SO HE WAS TELLING YOU YOU NEED TO BE OUT AND AMONGST AROUND PEOPLE, CORRECT? YES.
SO WHAT DID YOU DO TO BE AROUND PEOPLE? THAT WAS, I HAD THESE DAYS SCHEDULED THAT I WENT TO WORK AND I WENT TO WORK AT THE ER 'CAUSE IT WAS, IT'S A FAST PACED ENVIRONMENT.
SO YOU HAD SHIFTS ALREADY SCHEDULED FROM BEFORE YOU WENT OFF OF WORK AT THE ER, CORRECT? YES.
AND, AND BEING AT THE ER WAS BEING AROUND PEOPLE, CORRECT? YES.
SO WHAT'S YOUR JOB AT THE ER? I'M AN ER TECH.
AND WHAT IS AND HOW LONG YOU BEEN DOING THIS JOB AT THE ER? I STARTED IN JUNE OF 2020.
SO YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS? YES.
AND WHAT DOES AN ER TECH DO? UM, I COULD DO, I MEAN, TAKE VITALS, UM, MOVE PATIENTS, TAKE BLOOD DRAWS, JUST WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE THAT AT THE ER.
SO WERE YOU AROUND PEOPLE AT THE ER? YES.
SO DID WORKING AT THE ER HELP YOU MENTALLY? YES, IT DID.
IT, IT HELPED ME TO NOT SIT AND THINK THE WHOLE TIME ABOUT THIS 'CAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO THINK WHEN I'M THERE.
AND SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT WORKING AT THE ER HELPED YOUR SUICIDAL TENDENCIES? ABSOLUTELY.
I, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS, LET ME OBJECT.
[02:50:01]
I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING FOR OR FIELD, WE'RE ASKING HIM TO MAKE MEDICAL CONCLUSIONS.I MEAN, IT'S IMPROPER QUESTIONS.
I'M ASKING HIM ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME AND WHETHER OR NOT WORKING AT THE ER, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THING, HELPED HIS MENTAL STATE, THE, THE INTENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE COMMITTED FRAUD AGAINST THE, THE, THE BRPD HAS TO DO WITH HIS INTENT.
IT, IT MAY BE A MEDICAL PROBLEM, BUT I HAD THAT SAME QUESTION, SO I'M GONNA OVERRULE THAT.
KYLE, DID YOU TAKE OFF OF WORK AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO GO TO WORK AT THE ER? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
IF THEY WOULD'VE MOVED ME, I WOULD'VE DONE ANYTHING ELSE AND STAYED WORKING.
SO YOU'D HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO WORK AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT IF YOU WOULD'VE JUST, IF THEY WOULD'VE DONE WHAT YOU ASKED AND MOVED YOU OUTTA THAT ROOM? ABSOLUTELY.
IS YOUR REGULAR JOB AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AROUND PEOPLE? YES.
DID IT EVER CROSS YOUR MIND WHILE YOU WERE WORKING YOUR SHIFTS AT THE ER THAT YOU WERE OFF WORK AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND YOU MIGHT BE DOING SOMETHING WRONG? NO.
I'M TRYING, I'M TRYING REAL HARD TO NOT GET, UM, NO, I DID NOT.
IT WAS, I WAS IN SURVIVAL MODE BASICALLY.
I DIDN'T, IT NEVER CROSSED MY MIND AT ALL THAT I'VE NEVER TRIED TO DENY WHAT I, THAT I DID THIS EITHER.
AND YOU DIDN'T WORK AT THE ER EVERY DAY, DID YOU? NO, I WORKED, I DON'T KNOW, 13, 14 DAYS OVER A COURSE OF 13 OR 14 WEEKS.
AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING DURING YOUR DAYS OFF OF THE ER? UH, I CUT GRASS THREE TIMES IN ONE WEEK.
UM, YOU KNOW, JUST WHATEVER TO KEEP ME BUSY.
I DIDN'T PICK UP ANY EXTRA DAYS OKAY.
SO YOU, YOU JUST CONTINUED ON WITH THE ER TRYING TO KEEP YOURSELF BUSY WHEN YOU WEREN'T WORKING WITH THE ER AND THAT WAS YOUR LIFE AT THAT POINT IN TIME? YES.
AND YOU DIDN'T GET THIS ER JOB, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW LONG YOU'VE HAD IT, BUT YOU DIDN'T GO OUT AND GET THIS ER JOB AFTER YOU TOOK OFF OF WORK ON OCTOBER 19TH, RIGHT? NO.
AND YOU, AND YOU DO THIS JOB ALL THE TIME, RIGHT? YES.
SO, SO IF YOU, IF YOU WERE TO BEEN DOING YOUR REGULAR SHIFTS AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT,
WERE YOU AWARE AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING WHILE YOU WERE ON STRESS LEAVE? NOT AT THE TIME.
DID, HAD YOU HAD, HAD YOU, DID YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WHAT DR.
BOWAN TOLD YOU MIGHT ALLOW YOU TO GO, GO TO WORK? DID YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THAT? I, I HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION, OR HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION PRETTY MUCH MY WHOLE CAREER THAT IF YOU WERE ALL AND STRESS THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER YOUR DOCTOR TOLD YOU TO DO.
NOW I, I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS TOO THOUGH, LIKE I DID IN MY PREDETERMINATION HEARING, NO, HE DIDN'T TELL ME TO GO TO WORK, BUT HE TOLD ME NOT TO BE AROUND PEOPLE AND THAT, OR TO GO BE AROUND PEOPLE.
AND THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO BY GOING TO WORK.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A WRITTEN RULE SAYING THAT YOU COULD NOT WORK WHILE YOU WERE OUT ON STRESS LEAVE OR SICK LEAVE? NO.
NOW, WHEN YOU WERE OUT, WHEN YOU TOOK OFF ON STRESS LEAVE, DID ANYBODY AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT LET YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD NOT WORK WHILE YOU WERE ON STRESS LEAVE? NO.
NOW, DURING YOUR PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING, THEY TOLD YOU THEY TOLD YOU THAT, CORRECT? YES.
AND APPARENTLY WHAT I RESPONDED WITH WAS MISCONSTRUED BECAUSE I SAID I, I UNDERSTOOD THAT I BROKE THE RULES.
I UNDERSTOOD WHAT, ONCE THEY TOLD ME THAT I WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, I UNDERSTOOD THAT.
OKAY, WELL THAT BROKE THE RULE, RIGHT? SO ONCE YOU WERE TOLD YOU WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THIS, THEN YOU SAID, WELL, SINCE YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT I BROKE THE RULES.
AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE TERM, THAT'S THE, THE, THE WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING THROUGH, LEMME OBJECT TO THE CONTINUING LEADING, ACTUALLY INTERRUPTING THE WITNESS AND PUTTING OTHER WORDS IN HIS MOUTH.
QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'M, I'M GONNA SUSTAIN THAT.
MR. FLINT, UH, TOLD ME EARLIER THAT HE CAN MOVE ON QUICKLY AND WE ARE NOT MOVING ON QUICKLY.
DID YOU EVER INTEND TO DEFRAUD THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR TO DO ANYTHING WRONG? NO.
IN JANUARY OF 2024, THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU WERE DROPPED, CORRECT? YES.
HOW'D YOU FIND OUT ABOUT THAT? I WENT TO COURT, MY FINAL COURT APPEARANCE AND THEY WERE DROPPED DURING REGULAR COURT SESSION.
AND WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THAT COURT APPEARANCE? I LEFT THERE AND I DROVE DIRECTLY TO HEADQUARTERS BATRE FIRE DEPART.
WHY'D YOU DRIVE? WHY'D YOU DRIVE DIRECTLY TO HEAD? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
[02:55:01]
BATRE FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS, RIGHT? YES.WHY'D YOU DO THAT? SO THAT I COULD GO RETURN TO WORK.
DID YOU RETURN TO WORK AT THE BATON FIRE DEPARTMENT? UM, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN JANUARY 10TH.
THEY NEEDED SOMETHING FROM THE COURT SYSTEM, SO ONCE I GOT THAT, I DID RETURN TO WORK.
YOU RETURN BACK TO YOUR, BACK TO YOUR OLD POSITION? YES.
AND THEN SOON AFTER YOU RETURNED TO WORK, YOU WERE GIVEN THE, YOU THE NOTICE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU WERE BEING INVESTIGATED, CORRECT? YES.
UM, WAS THAT THE FIRST THAT YOU HAD HEARD ABOUT POSSIBLY BEING TERMINATED? NO, I WAS, I RECEIVED A CALL ABOUT THREE WEEKS BEFORE I WENT BACK TO WORK FROM SOMEONE AT BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, A PERSON THAT WORKS ON THE FLOOR WHO ASKED ME IF I HAD BEEN TERMINATED FOR WORKING WHILE I WAS OFF ON SICK LEAVE.
SO BEFORE YOUR INVESTIGATION EVEN STARTED, PEOPLE AROUND THE STATION HAD HEARD THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE TERMINATED? YES.
AND THEY ALSO OFFERED THAT IT WAS ME.
LEMME OBJECT THAT, THAT IS HEARSAY.
UM, DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR INVESTIGATION STARTED? NO.
WHAT DOES THIS TERMINATION DO TO YOUR RETIREMENT? WELL, UM, SO RIGHT NOW I CAN'T DRAW ANYTHING WHEN I'M 55, I COULD DRAW 50% OF MY SALARY.
AND WHAT IS THAT? UH, THINK IT WAS AVERAGE OR CALCULATED OUT 20.
AND WHAT WOULD YOUR RETIREMENT LOOK LIKE IF YOU DID NOT GET FIRED? IF I DIDN'T GET FIRED, I COULD FINISH MY, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS OUT AND GET TO 75% AND NOT TAKE A PENALTY.
SO YOU GOT 5,000, SO YOU NEED FIVE MORE YEARS AND, AND THEN WHAT? YES.
AND WHAT DID YOU SAY? ABOUT $5,000? YEAH, IT WOULD BE ABOUT, I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING AROUND $5,000.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT, SO IF YOU WORK FOR FIVE MORE YEARS, YOU'LL GET $5,000 A MONTH? YES.
AND IT ALSO WILL OPEN UP THE MR. FLINT.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD HAS ANY AUTHORITY OR ANY, UH,
SO LET'S, LET'S MOVE ON FROM THAT.
WE ARE DEALING WITH THE FACT THAT HE'S BEEN TERMINATED FOR CAUSE.
SO IF YOU WOULD DEAL WITH THAT, WE'D APPRECIATE IT.
HOW OLD ARE YOU RIGHT NOW? 42.
YOU TURNED 42 IN JULY, RIGHT? YES.
AND I KNOW I'VE ASKED YOU THIS LIKE THREE TIMES ALREADY, BUT JUST TO BE 100% CLEAR, DURING THIS WHOLE TIME YOU WERE OFF, DID YOU INTEND TO BREAK ANY RULES AT ALL WITH RESPECT TO YOU WORKING AT THE ER? NO, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
DID I ASK FOR A, UM, A THREE MINUTE BREAK SO THAT I CAN CONSULT WITH THE CHIEF ON A FEW ISSUES? SINCE I'M NOT THERE, I'M NOT ABLE TO ASK HIM AS WE'RE GOING ALONG.
SO IF Y'ALL JUST GAVE US TWO MINUTES TO BE ABLE TO TALK, I COULDN'T DO THAT.
I HAVE A QUICK WHILE WE'RE ON WATER.
DAWN, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR KYLE BEFORE WE BREAK.
KYLE, IN THE STATEMENT, UH, THAT WAS GIVEN YOU, YOU HAD SAID THAT, THAT THE STRESS WAS CAUSED, UH, FROM THE CHARGES THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED.
WHEN, FROM THE DEPARTMENT, FROM THE CHARGES THAT YOU RECEIVED, WHAT WERE THOSE CHARGES? IT WAS, UM, ALLEGED CHARGES, DOMESTIC ABUSE AGAINST THE DATING PARTNER AND, UM, WITH CHILD ENDANGERMENT.
AND IT WAS, UM, CRUELTY TO A JUVENILE OF A NINE MONTH OLD.
AND AND THOSE WERE ALL ALLEGED CHARGES, RIGHT? YES, THEY WERE.
I MEAN, THEY WERE FOUNDED BE AND YOU WERE CLEARED OF THOSE CHARGES? I WAS COMPLETELY CLEARED OF EVERYTHING.
ALLEGED BY WHAT AGENCY, SIR? ALLEGED BY WHICH AGENCY? UM, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
YOU ARE GRANTED A FIVE MINUTE, UM, RECESS, MS.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL RETURN FROM RECESS.
MS. MS. GI, I THINK YOU, IT'S ON YOU.
UM, MR. FLYNN, EXPLAIN, UH, AT FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES, EXPLAIN WHERE YOUR DESK WAS IN RELATIONSHIP TO SAY THE CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT CHIEF.
THE CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT CHIEF'S OFFICES WERE OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM THAT I WAS IN.
I WAS IN A BIG ROOM AT THE END OF A HALL AND THEY WERE THE TWO OFFICES DIRECTLY OUTSIDE THE BIG, THE DOOR OF THE BIG ROOM.
[03:00:01]
CONFINED TO YOUR SPACE AND TOLD THAT YOU COULDN'T MOVE AROUND OR WALK AROUND? NO, I WAS NEVER TOLD.CONFINED TO A SPACE AND TOLD THAT I COULDN'T MOVE AROUND, BUT I HAD A DESK AND A COMPUTER THERE AND I WAS ENTERING STUFF INTO THE COMPUTER, SO I COULDN'T VERY EASILY DO THAT WITHOUT BEING SITTING AT THE DESK.
BUT THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE OFFICES ADJO ADJOINING YOURS? CORRECT? ADJOINING MINE, BUT NOT IN THE SAME OFFICE AS MINE AND I MEAN, YEAH.
WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE BIG ROOM WITH YOU? NOT GENERALLY AFTER NINE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING OR SO.
BUT THEY WERE THERE IN THE MORNING AND THEY WERE THERE IN THE AFTERNOON, RIGHT? NO, NOT IN THE AFTERNOONS.
THEY WERE THERE FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF IN THE MORNING.
AND AFTER THAT, THE CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT CHIEF AND THE CLERICAL STAFF WAS THERE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND WERE YOU EVER TOLD YOU COULDN'T SOCIALIZE WITH THEM? NO, I WAS NOT TOLD I COULDN'T SOCIALIZE WITH THEM.
AND WERE YOU ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY GO FREELY TO YOUR APPOINTMENTS AND TO BE OUT OF THE OFFICE IF NECESSARY? YES.
IF I HAD A APPOINTMENT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR SOMETHING OR SOMETHING DUE TO MY CASE, YES I COULD.
OR YOU KNOW, I WAS ALLOWED TO GO DO OTHER THINGS AS WELL.
THEY WERE PRETTY LENIENT ON YOU ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? OBJECTION.
WHAT'S THE OBJECTION? YOU CAN ANSWER.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS, I MEAN, I WAS ALSO, YOU KNOW, GETTING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH I WAS GETTING DONE EVERY, PRETTY MUCH EVERY AFTERNOON.
UM, SO THEY WERE ALSO PUSHING ME TO DO THE TASKS THAT I NEEDED TO DO.
UH, IF I STAYED AWAY FROM THE DEATH TOO LONG, I COULDN'T GET THAT DONE.
BUT THEY WERE COMMUNICATING WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR LACK OF PERFORMANCE? UM, YES.
FOR THE, YES, FOR THE FIRST MONTH OR SO.
AND, UH, DID YOU EVER SPECIFICALLY ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT WORKING AT THE ER? NO, I DID NOT EVER SPECIFICALLY ASK HIM ABOUT WORKING THERE.
AND I, I, I DID SAY THAT HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY TELL ME TO GO WORK THERE EITHER.
AND, UH, ISN'T IT TRADITIONALLY THOUGHT THAT THE ER POSITIONS ARE STRESSFUL POSITIONS? YES.
THE PROBLEM THOUGH THAT I'M, THAT HAD ME IN THE WAY THAT I WAS, WAS BEING IN THAT OFFICE BY MYSELF, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE DAY.
UM, DID YOU GO TO THE FIRE STATIONS AFTER YOU GOT OFF OF WORK OR, UM, CAN YOU, I'M SORRY, JUST TO STOP BY AND, AND VISIT OR WHAT? YEAH, I'M SURE MAYBE, UH, MAYBE I DID ONCE OR TWICE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW OFTEN WHY I DIDN'T DO IT.
AND DID YOU UM, I, I'M GONNA UM, STOP MY QUESTIONING THERE AND, UM, I'LL TENDER.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. UH FLINT? ANYONE? NO.
UM, OUR NEXT WITNESS IS CAPTAIN BEN.
CASHIER, THE GENTLEMEN, IF WE CAN, LET'S KEEP IT DIRECTED TO THE POINT.
MR. CASHIO, CAN YOU, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND RANK FOR THE BOARD? BENJAMIN CASHIO.
I'M THE CAPTAIN AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT RIGHT AT THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
MR. CASHIER, HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN OFF OF WORK FOR THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO GO WORK AT ANOTHER PLACE TAKEN OFF ON SICK LEAVE? YES.
LEMME OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCY.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY.
IT'S AS RELEVANT AS IT CAN GET.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SIMILAR SITUATION.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE LAW THERE'S A LOT OF
[03:05:01]
CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET BEFORE YOU DECLARE IT TO BE SIMILARLY SITUATED.IT HAS TO BE A SIMILAR BOSS, IT HAS TO BE A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE, IT HAS TO BE A SIMILAR FACTUAL PATTERN.
THAT'S ALL THOSE THINGS GO INTO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RELEVANT.
HE OVERRULED THE, THE OBJECTION.
UH, SO GO AHEAD MR. GIO, WHAT WAS YOUR PUNISHMENT FOR TAKING OFF WORK ON SICK LEAVE FOR THE EXPRESS INTENT OF GOING TO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE? I, I GOT 15 DAYS WITHOUT PAY.
ANY, UH, CROSS MR. GI? ANY CROSS? NO.
BOARD, I'D JUST LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION AS IT WAS BROUGHT TO MIND THAT THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS TODAY HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS STARTING AT THREE 30.
OH THREE 30 AND THE TIME IS NOW 3 28.
SEEMS LIKE UH, Y'ALL ARE DONE ANYWAY, RIGHT? WE'RE, WE'RE WE REST? WE'RE READY FOR CLOSING.
CAN YOU DO IT IN 30 SECONDS OR LESS? BECAUSE WE GOTTA GET OUTTA HERE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN DO IT IN 30 SECONDS OR LESS, BUT I'LL CERTAINLY TRY TO GO AS FAST AS I CAN.
DO Y'ALL NEED TO HEAR CLOSINGS? BECAUSE I, IT IS REALLY UP TO Y'ALL BOARD MEMBER.
WHAT DO YOU THINK FURTHER? OKAY.
UM, IN LIGHT OF, UM, THE MEETING, WHAT MR. RICKS IS ASKING IS IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE EVIDENTIARY ASPECT OF THE, THE HEARING.
WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ANNOUNCE OUR DECISION AT THE UPCOMING MEETING.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? YOU CAN'T.
YOU LET ME MAKE AN OBJECTION IN THAT YOU CAN'T VOTE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
YOU SAID ANNOUNCE YOUR DECISION AT THE NEXT, AT THE NEXT MEETING.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'D COME TO THE NEXT MEETING AND RECONVENE.
UH, DON, WHAT'D YOU SAY? UH, THERE'S A CONFLICT ON WHEN WE GOTTA GET OUTTA HERE.
YEAH, WE THOUGHT IT WAS FOUR O'CLOCK.
ANOTHER PERSON SAYING THREE 30.
CAN YOU GO CHECK ON THAT FOR HER? THANK YOU.
WELL, CAN I ALSO SUGGEST THAT DON, WHERE Y'ALL GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION? HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
SO BOARD, I GUESS WE GOTTA MAKE A DECISION 'CAUSE WE ARE KIND OF PRESSED FOR TOM, REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION.
I PERSONALLY THINK THIS IS, UH, TOO IMPORTANT OF A DECISION TO MAKE SO QUICKLY.
SO I THINK MAYBE IF WE CAN DEFER IT TO THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SIDE AND FOR THE EMPLOYEE SIDE, IT'S, IT'S TOO IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT OF A DECISION TO RUSH.
SO WHY ME TO JUST DEFER IT TO THE NEXT MEETING THEN? CAN WE DO THAT? DO YOU GUYS KNOW WHEN THE NEXT MEETING IS? KAREN? WE'RE ABOUT TO GET OUT JUNE 24TH.
WHAT YOU ENDING? YEAH, WE'RE IN IT BECAUSE Y'ALL HAVE TO BE IN OKAY.
YEAH, WE'RE ABOUT GET I UNDERSTAND THREE 30.
SO A MOTION TO, UH, DEFER TO THIS MATTER TO THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS JUNE 24TH.
MR. UH, DUSTIN FLINT, DO YOU HAVE AVAILABILITY ON THAT DAY? SAME QUESTION, MS. UH, DI UM, I SHOULD, WOULD WE BE COMING BACK TO DO CLOSING STATEMENTS? YES.
OR JUST CLOSING STATEMENTS? NO EVIDENCE.
WELL, WE NEVER REALLY GOT ASKED IF WE HAD ANY OTHER EVIDENCE.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT I DO, BUT IT OKAY.
MR. FLYNN, YOU OKAY? I, YEAH, I'M, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS FAIR, BUT I WILL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE.
I UNDERSTAND THE BOARD, I MEAN, CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS AREN'T DOING THIS AND YOU'RE GETTING KICKED OUTTA YOUR ROOM.
I DON'T THINK YOU WANT US TO MAKE A QUICK DECISION.
I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE A QUICK DECISION, BUT I WILL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE ON THE 24TH.
I'LL CANCEL WHATEVER'S GOING ON.
AND, AND MS. GEE, NOT JUST, HEY KEN, I'M ME.
CAN I MAKE ONE OTHER SUGGESTION? IF Y'ALL ARE GONNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHAT ROOM ARE YOU GONNA GO INTO? WE'RE
[03:10:01]
JUST GONNA DEFER COMPLETELY UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.I WAS JUST SUGGESTING THAT IF YOU WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT YOU COULD THEN COME OUT AND MAKE THE, IN JUST, YOU KNOW, VOTE AND ALL IN THE OTHER ROOM.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE COULD MOVE THE, MOVE THE MEETING TO THE OTHER ROOM FOR FINISHING.
NO, WE'RE GONNA, UH, SUBJECT TO THE BOARD APPROVING.
THIS IS SUGGESTION, SUBJECT TO THE BOARD APPROVING THE MOTION.
WE'RE GONNA, UH, DEFER TO THE NEXT MEETING.
SO Y'ALL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION.
SO WE CAN GET OUTTA THESE PEOPLE.
SO CAN I GET A MEETING, UM, MOTION TO THAT EFFECT PLEASE? THAT WE DEFER OUR ACTION ON THIS MATTER TO THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE THE 24TH OF JUNE.
WE, UH, MOVE TO THE 24TH MOVE BY MR. RICKS.
ANY OPPOSITION? ANY OPPOSITION? NAY.
THE MEETING IS DEFERRED UNTIL JUNE 24TH.
NOW YOU NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN? YEAH,
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.