[00:00:08]
[1. Call meeting to order.]
MEETING TO ORDER.[2. Roll Call]
CALL PLEASE? YES, SIR.ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? ANYONE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NO ONE APPROACH THE PODIUM? WE'LL MOVE TO
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda.]
AGENDA ITEM THREE, CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
BY MR. THOMAS THAT WE APPROVE THE AGENDA.
OPPOSED? THIS NA THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.
[4. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from May 13, 2024, regular meeting.]
CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 13TH, 2024, WHICH IS A REGULAR MEETING.HOPEFULLY, UH, YOU'VE READ THOSE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES APPROVED BY, MOVED BY MR. THOMAS.
UH, YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MR. RICKS? YEAH, JUST THE, THE TERMINOLOGY ON PAGE TWO.
UH, PARAGRAPH ONE, THE LAST SENTENCE, IT SAYS, NAER APPEARED AND OPPOSED HIS TERMINATION BASED ON ARREST AND NOT CONVICTION.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, UM, WAS IT BASED ON HIS ARREST AND NOT BEING ABLE TO REPORT TO WORK? OR WAS IT STRICTLY THE ARREST AND NOT EVICTION? THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
FIRST PARAGRAPH, LAST SENTENCE.
THAT'S PAGE THREE, RIGHT? PAGE THREE.
I THINK THAT IS THE WAY THAT, THAT, UM, WAS PRESENTED TO US.
THAT HE INDICATED THAT HE WAS NOT CONVICTED, BUT JUST ARRESTED.
AM I, AM I CORRECT MR. SIR? RIGHT.
THAT FINAL, SO WE'RE ON PAGE THREE.
OF THE, THE PROPOSED MINUTES FOR MS. SPROUL.
THAT LAST LINE AT IN THE TOP PARAGRAPH, THAT'S JUST HIS ARGUMENT, NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO THAT WAS HIS ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, HE, ALTHOUGH HE WAS ARRESTED, HE WAS NOT CONVICTED.
AND OF COURSE, ULTIMATELY THE BOARD RULED AGAINST THAT.
THAT THAT'S JUST HIS ARGUMENT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? OKAY.
IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[5. Consider Motion to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms.]
A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS. I'M SURE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PERSONAL ACTIONS FROM BOTH FIRE AND POLICE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PERSONNEL ACTION.
ALL IN FAVOR THAT WE APPROVE PERSONAL ACTION FORMS, SAY AYE.
PERSONAL ACTION FORMS ARE APPROVED.
[6. Consider Motion to Review/Accept Test Scores.]
SIX, CONSIDER MOTION TO REVIEW EXCEPT TEST SCORES.WE DO HAVE SOME TESTCOS, WHICH I WILL NOW OPEN.
THIS ONE WAS GOING TO BE, LET'S SEE.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A POCKET KNIFE?
[00:05:01]
ANY POCKET KNIVES OUT THERE? BOY, THEY TAPE THEM OFF.WE HAVE TESCO'S FOR POLICE CAPTAIN.
WE HAVE, UH, LOOKS LIKE, OH, MAYBE
I THINK, I THINK THEY'RE ALL SHE SAY SO ON THE FRONT.
OH, PHOTO STAMP LOOKS LIKE, YEP.
AND I WILL PASS THIS AROUND FOR YOU TO LOOK AT.
THAT LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY PASSED.
SO, MR. CHAIR, JUST FOR THE RECORD AND UH, FOR THOSE INTERESTED, WE HAVE THE CAPTAIN'S EXAM.
IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE WHO APPEARED FOR THE TEST PASSED THE TEST.
SO A MOTION TO APPROVE TEST SCORES WITH THAT INFORMATION IS IN ORDER.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE TEST SCORES.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
OPPOSED? AS THIS GOES ARE APPROVED AND I WILL MAKE SURE.
DOES ANYBODY WANNA, ANYBODY WANNA SEE THOSE? NO.
[7. Consider a request from Chief Thomas Morse, Jr., to rehire of former Police Communications Officer, Asheba Brown.]
CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REQUEST FROM CHIEF THOMAS MOORE, EXCUSE ME, TO REHIRE THE FORMER POLICE COMMUNICATION OFFICER, YESHIVA BROWN.MR. THOMAS, I MOVE BY MR. THOMAS.
[8. Consider a motion to accept application for: Fire Department - Fire Communications Officer II Police Department - Police Fingerprint Technician I Police Cadet Police Criminal Information Specialist I]
EIGHT, CONSIDER A MOTION TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FOR FIVE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER TWO, FIVE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER.THREE, POLICE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN ONE.
POLICE CADET POLICE, CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST ONE, AND POLICE CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST.
YOU HAVE A COPY OF THOSE IN YOUR FOLDERS.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATIONS LISTED.
ANY OPPOSES NAY MOTIONS APPROVED.
[9. Consider a motion to Approve or Reject Applications/Test Scores for Fire Communications Officer I.]
NINE.CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT APPLICATIONS TEST SCORES FOR FIRE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER ONE.
DO I HAVE A, I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATIONS APPROVE.
MR. THOMAS TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE FIVE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER ONE ALL AND SAME AS AYE.
[10. Consider a motion to Approve or Reject Applications/Test Scores for Police Communications Officer I.]
10 INSTEAD.A MOTION TO APPROVE REJECT THE APPLICATION TEST SCORES.
THE FIRST ONE'S FIRE AS SETTLE.
POLICE COMMUNICATION OFFICER ONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR IT? I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE SCORES.
[00:10:01]
MR. THOMAS.DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
[11. Consider Motion to Approve Motion to Stay filed on behalf of Cpl. DeMichael Robertson.]
CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE.MOTION TO STAY FILED ON BEHALF OF CORPORAL DEMIC ROBERTSON.
THI THIS ONE HAS BEEN STAYED BY THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY PENDING CRIMINAL, UH, CHARGES.
UH, THE CRIMINAL CHARGES HAVE NOT RESOLVED THEMSELVES JUST YET.
SO THE PARTIES JUST ASK THAT IT BE STAYED ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.
WE'RE GONNA CHECK BACK IN ON IN SIX MONTHS, UNLESS IT RESOLVES EARLIER, OF COURSE.
BUT WHAT'S THE PLEASURE TO VOTE? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MOTION.
SECOND BY MR. LEMON THAT WE APPROVE THE STAY FILED ON BEHALF OF CORPORAL MICHAEL ROBERSON.
[12. Hear and Consider Appeal Hearing on behalf of Kyle Flint, formerly with BRFD (continued from last meeting). 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 b. Consider a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition. The matter may be discussed in 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]
ITEM 12, HEAR AND CONSIDER APPEAL HEARING ON BEHALF OF KYLE FLINT, FORMERLY WITH THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.AND THIS IS A CONTINUATION FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
MR. CHAIR, IF YOU RECALL, UM, WE'D GOTTEN TO THE, BASICALLY THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE, UM, THE BOARD WAS ABOUT TO START DELIBERATING OR ASKING QUESTIONS AND, UH, WE NEEDED TO, TO MOVE THIS HEARING TO, TO TODAY.
UM, SO I THINK WHERE WE SHOULD START IS IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PARTIES.
THERE WAS A, I GUESS A MEMORANDUM AND MOTION FILED BY MR. FLINT, UM, FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
I BELIEVE HE MADE THE SAME MOTION DURING THE PROCEEDINGS.
HE JUST DRAFTED A MEMORANDUM TO ACCOMPANY IT.
UM, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE HANDLED SEPARATELY.
THAT COULD BE HANDLED IN HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT AS WELL.
UM, SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PARTIES, WE BEGIN THERE, THEN GO TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND DELIBERATE.
WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? YES, I HAVE QUESTION.
MR. RICKS, UH, CHIEF REMONT, IS HE AVAILABLE? SO HIS NEXT HE WHAT? OKAY.
SO WHO WOULD BE THE NEXT IN LINE, I GUESS CHIEF EDGES? A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF EDGES.
SO WE GOT A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THAT CHIEF REMONT CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION ON KYLE F. FLYNN ON 1 31 OF 24.
UM, SO BASICALLY HE CONDUCTED THIS INVESTIGATION ON 1 31 OF 24, IF THAT'S WHAT THE, THE LETTER WAS STATING? YES, SIR.
AND IN HIS LETTER, HE STATED THAT HE SPOKE TO, UM, TAMARA WITH OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, UH, HR ON THE 31ST.
DO YOU KNOW THAT HE SPOKE WITH HER ON THE 31ST OR WAS IT PRIOR TO THAT? THAT WHY MR. RICKS? I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT I DO KNOW THERE WAS A CONVERSATION WITH THE PERSON, WITH THE, UH, LADY OF THE LIGHT.
AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TIME HE SPOKE WITH HER? NO, SIR.
WHAT TIME WAS THE, UH, NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION DELIVERED TO MR. FLINT ON THE 31ST? UH, I, I, MR. RICKS? I HAVE NO IDEA.
IT WAS PROBABLY LATER IN THE DAY.
I I, I, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE MISLEADING IF I SAID WHAT TIME IT WAS IN THAT DAY.
UH, CHIEF WELLS IS, CHIEF WELLS IS LISTED ON THIS NOTIFICATION.
WHAT, WHAT TIME OF DAY DID YOU DELIVER THAT NOTIFICATION TO, TO MR. FLINT? I DO NOT RECALL THE EXACT
[00:15:01]
TIME.UM, I DID, BUT, BUT IT WAS ON, IF I HAVE IT DOCUMENTED IN MY OFFICE, I DID NOT BRING, IT WAS ON THE 31ST AND NOT FEBRUARY 1ST.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE TO THE ATTORNEY'S CLOSING STATEMENTS, SIR.
AND IT WOULD BE, UH, ON THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO, TO DO THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENT FIRST.
SO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WILL GET CLOSING ARGUMENT, THEN A RESPONSE WILL COME FROM THE, UM, THE EMPLOYEE AND THEN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS A BRIEF REBUTTAL.
KYLE FLINT WAS AN EMPLOYEE WITH THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
HE WAS ARRESTED FOR A NON-WORK RELATED INCIDENT ON MAY 22ND, 2023.
AND IN ORDER TO ASSIST HIM ON MAY 24TH, BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT PUT HIM ON DESK DUTY.
HE WAS NEVER PROHIBITED FROM TALKING OR BEING AROUND OTHER EMPLOYEES, NOR WERE HIS MOVEMENTS TO GO TO APPOINTMENTS OR ANYWHERE ELSE RESTRICTED.
HE NOTIFIED THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH HIS SUPERVISOR THAT HE WAS GOING OUT ON SICK LEAVE OCTOBER 10TH, 2023.
RECORDS INDICATE HE WAS RELEASED FROM HIS DOCTOR'S CARE AND WAS CLEAR TO COME BACK TO WORK ON JANUARY 19TH, 2024.
ON JANUARY 31ST, THIS EMPLOYEE WAS PLACED UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR REPORTS THAT HE WAS WORKING AT OUR LADY OF THE LAKE WHILE HE WAS OFF ON SICK LEAVE.
HE ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIVING THE LETTER OF INVESTIGATION.
THE EMPLOYEE WAS PROVIDED WITH DUE PROCESS AND THERE WAS NO DECEPTIVE INTENT BY THE DEPARTMENT.
ON THE ERRONEOUS DATE OF THE LETTER, THE EMPLOYEE CONFIRMED THAT WHILE OUT ON SICK LEAVE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, HE WORKED AT THE LADY OF THE LAKE FOR 14 SHIFTS.
BETWEEN OCTOBER 28TH AND JANUARY 18TH, 2024.
ON FEBRUARY 20TH, THE EMPLOYEE WAS PROVIDED WITH A LETTER OF PREDETERMINATION AND THE HEARING WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 29TH, 2024.
DURING THE HEARING, THE EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE DEPARTMENT, BUT HE DID UNDERSTAND THAT HE BROKE THE RULES.
HE ALSO INDICATED THAT HIS DOCTOR DID NOT TELL HIM NOT TO GO TO WORK, BUT THAT HIS DOCTOR DID TELL HIM TO BE AROUND PEOPLE.
THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT INFORMATION WAS CONVEYED TO THE DEPARTMENT.
HAD THAT INFORMATION BEEN CONVEYED TO THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE EMPLOYEE WENT OUT ON SICK LEAVE, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD'VE WORKED WITH THIS EMPLOYEE TO KEEP HIM IN.
WHY WOULD THE DEPARTMENT HAVE DONE THAT? BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S LEAVE SYSTEM IS SET UP SO THAT AN EMPLOYEE CAN HAVE NEGATIVE BALANCES ON THEIR SICK LEAVE.
WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE LEAVE IS CHARGED IN 16 HOUR, HOUR INCREMENTS FOR EACH DAY.
SICK DAY ABSENT WHEN RETIREMENT COMES UP FOR AN EMPLOYEE, THEY CAN BE IN THE NEGATIVE OF SICK LEAVE HOURS, AND THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PAY BACK THAT SICK LEAVE NEGATIVE BALANCE.
IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE RETIREMENT.
AND BATON ROUGE FIRE, UH, FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS TO SUFFER THE LOSS.
BEFORE THIS EMPLOYEE WENT OUT ON SICK LEAVE ON OCTOBER 10TH, HE ALREADY HAD A NEGATIVE BALANCE OF 1,824 HOURS.
STANDARD WORK HOURS FOR AN EMPLOYEE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ARE 2,906, UH, 2,912 HOURS A YEAR.
THIS EMPLOYEE'S NEGATIVE LEAVE BALANCE IS ABOUT 62% OF AN ENTIRE YEAR OF WORK.
KEEP IN MIND THAT HE CONTINUED TO EARN LEAVE DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT AND HE CONTINUED TO EARN LEAVE WHILE OUT ON SICK.
WHEN HE RETURNED FROM SICK LEAVE ON JANUARY 20TH, HE HAD ADDED TO THIS NEGATIVE SICK LEAVE BALANCE AN ADDITIONAL 349 HOURS, WHICH THEN TOTALED 2,173 HOURS, HOURS THAT THE TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY FOR.
AND THAT BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL NOT RECOUP.
CHIEF CAMPBELL IS TASKED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LIFE, LIMB AND PROPERTY, WHICH INCLUDES TRUST OF THE PUBLIC FISK AS A GOOD STEWARD, IT IS HIS DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE SPENDING IS CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED AND THAT THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY IS SPENT WISELY.
WHAT MESSAGE DOES IT SEND IF AN EMPLOYEE CAN GO OUT ON SICK LEAVE WITH BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND GET PAID FOR THE SICK LEAVE, BUT THEN GO EARN ADDITIONAL MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE WHILE OUT ON SICK LEAVE? HAD THE EMPLOYEE NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT THAT HE NEEDED TO BE AROUND PEOPLE, THE DEPARTMENT MOST CERTAINLY WOULD'VE LOOKED AT THIS AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS.
BUT RATHER THAN TRUSTING THIS DEPARTMENT HE'S BEEN AT FOR 20 YEARS, HE CHOSE TO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IN ADDITION, MAYBE THIS TYPE OF ACTION WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER OTHER PRIOR CHIEFS, OR MAYBE PRIOR CHIEFS WERE UNAWARE OF IT.
BUT CHIEF KIM HAS BEEN IN HIS POSITION FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS, AND HE IS, UH, HE DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS TYPE OF WHAT WE'LL CALL DOUBLE-DIPPING.
IT IS COSTLY TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY, THE TAXPAYERS CHIEF KIM WOULD'VE FOUND ANOTHER AVENUE FOR THIS EMPLOYEE TO BE AROUND AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT HIS DOCTOR HAS.
BUT HE NEVER GAVE THE CHIEF A CHANCE TO DO THAT FOR
[00:20:01]
THESE REASONS.BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT ASKED THAT THIS BOARD DENIED THE EMPLOYEE'S APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYEE.
CHIEF KIMBALL, HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTION FOR, UH, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.
ARE, ARE YOU, DID YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT THE BOARD SHOULD DISREGARD ANYTHING A PRIOR CHIEF HAS DONE? WAS THAT THE POINT OF THAT STATE? WELL, I, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS EARLIER TESTIMONY IN REGARDS TO AN EMPLOYEE THAT POSSIBLY THAT THIS HAD OCCURRED ON, BUT, UH, A LOT OF TIMES WHEN APPOINTING AUTHORITY STEP IN, THEY WILL LOOK AT THE RULES IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
AND MAYBE WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE SHOULD NOT BE DONE OR IS NOT BEING DONE.
NOW, A LOT OF TIMES, UM, AND AS THE EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS, WE WILL HAVE, UH, EMPLOYEES COME IN AND THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WILL CHANGE RULES OR THEY'LL REVIEW THINGS AND SEE IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
BUT SO FAR, UNDER CHIEF KIMBALL, THIS HAS NEVER OCCURRED WITH HIM BEFORE.
UM, BECAUSE HAD IT, HE WOULD'VE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
AND IT HAS NOT BEEN, HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS ALLOWABLE.
AND HAS THE DEPARTMENT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHICH RULE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? MR. PES YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE RULE OF THIS SICK LEAVE POLICY? YES.
SO YES, WE DID BRING THAT UP AT LAST MEETING, BUT THAT WAS NOT PUT INTO THIS INVESTIGATION.
I MEAN, WE, WE KEEP SAYING THAT MR. FLINT VIOLATED THE RULES.
MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THERE WAS SOME QUESTION RULES.
WE HAVE RULES PLACE MR. PRESS THAT STATES THAT WHILE OFF ON SICK LEAVE YOU WERE STAY HOME FOR 24 HOURS.
AND IF FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO THE APPOINTING US ALREADY, IF I REMEMBER, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, UM, MR. FLINT WAS GI GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESIGN, UH, BEFORE AT SOME POINT DURING THIS, UH, NEGOTIATION.
WE, UH, DURING THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING, SIR, WE ASKED HIM SOME MILESTONES OF WHERE HE WAS AT IN HIS CAREER.
AND, UH, THE DATE WAS FOR, TO REACH HIS RETIREMENT.
HE WENT AND MET WITH THE RETIREMENT BOARD AND WE WAITED TILL AFTER THAT DATE TO MOVE ON TERMINATION TO ALLOW HIM TO MEET THAT.
UM, I'M, I'M JUST GONNA, I'M GONNA START BY JUST RESPONDING TO A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM THE, UM, FROM THE CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UM, FIRST OFF, THIS IDEA THAT HAD KYLE JUST TOLD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT HE NEEDED TO BE AROUND PEOPLE, THEY WOULD'VE ACCOMMODATED HIM, IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE.
KYLE ASKED CHIEF KIMBALL ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND HE TESTIFIED TO THIS AND CHIEF KIMBALL DID NOT DENY IT AT TRIAL.
HE ASKED HIM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO GET HIM OUT OF THAT ROOM, THAT IT WAS DRIVING HIM CRAZY.
HE NEEDED TO GET OUTTA THAT ROOM.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFERED HIM ANY OTHER OPTION OTHER THAN TO SIT IN THAT ROOM.
AND WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T LET HIM TALK TO PEOPLE, BUT HE HAD A JOB TO DO.
AND THAT JOB WAS IN THAT ROOM, AND HE HAD TO SIT THERE AND DO THOSE REPORTS.
YOU GUYS HEARD THAT TESTIMONY BEFORE AND NOW TO COME BACK AND SAY, IF YOU WOULD'VE JUST LET US KNOW, WE WOULD'VE HELPED YOU.
IT, IT, IT, THAT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP BEFORE.
AND THAT'S UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY THAT HE LET THE FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOW.
AND HE BASICALLY BEGGED CHIEF KIMBALL TO GET HIM OUTTA THAT ROOM.
SO THAT'S, UM, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY HOW IT WENT DOWN.
AND MOVING ON FROM THAT, UH, YOU, YOU'LL RECALL FROM THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL THAT WE MADE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AT THE END OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S CASE IN CHIEF.
WE FILED A MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THAT SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION.
AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE ALL RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT.
I HAVE EXTRA COPIES IF EVERYBODY NEEDS ONE.
SO THAT MOTION REQUESTS THAT YOU REVERSE KYLE'S TERMINATION AFTER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S CASE IN CHIEF BECAUSE HIS CONSTI NUMBER ONE IS CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS.
UH, RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, OR BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS TRIAL.
AS TO THE DUE PROCESS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES HAVE A PROPERTY RIGHT TO THEIR JOB.
ANYTIME A PERSON'S LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY OR
[00:25:01]
THREATENED, THEY MUST BE PROVIDED WITH DUE PROCESS AND THEY CAN ONLY BE DEPRIVED OF THESE THINGS FOR CAUSE.IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO KYLE VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT KYLE WAS TERMINATED FOR CO FOR CAUSE AS TO DUE PROCESSING.
YOU HEARD THESE PROBLEMS THE FIRST TIME WE WERE HERE, AND I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER 'EM ALL AGAIN.
I'LL JUST LIST THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS NOTICE AS FAR AS DUE PROCESS GO, NUMBER ONE, THE, THE, THE, THE NOTICE FAILED TO INFORM HIM THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD 60 DAYS TO FINISH INVESTIGATIONS THAT WASN'T ON THERE.
NUMBER TWO, IT TOLD HIM A FALSE START DATE OF THE INVESTIGATION SO THAT HE COULDN'T CALCULATE THE 60 DAY DEADLINE, EVEN IF HE, IF HE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A 60 DAY DEADLINE.
AND THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THEY DIDN'T START THAT INVESTIGATION BEFORE THEY DELIVERED THAT NOTE.
THAT NOTICE TO HIM, AND I, I'LL ARGUE THAT JUST PUTTING THE FALSE START DATE ON THE NOTICE IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.
BUT YOU GUYS JUST ASKED THE QUESTION AND THEY SAID, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE GAVE HIM THE NOTICE.
OKAY? AND IT'S THEIR BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THEY GAVE HIM THE NOTICE BEFORE THEY STARTED THE INVESTIGATION.
WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE INVESTIGATING THIS ON JANUARY 31ST.
WE KNOW THAT WITHOUT A FACT, WITHOUT A DOUBT, WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BRING A WITNESS UP HERE TO SAY EVEN WHEN THEY DELIVERED THAT, THAT NOTICE TO HIM.
OKAY? SO THEY'VE FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF RIGHT THERE.
THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A COPY OF THE FIRE SERVICE BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE NOTICE FAILED TO CITE ANY RULE THAT'S RELEVANT TO WORKING WHILE ON SICK LEAVE.
SO HE COULDN'T MOUNT A DEFENSE BASED ON THE RULES THAT THEY GAVE HIM.
THEY GAVE HIM SOME GENERAL RULES, DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NOT WORKING ON SICK LEAVE.
EVERY ONE OF THESE FAILURES VIOLATED KYLE'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND DETERMINE, AND, AND TERMINATIONS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED FOR EACH ONE OF THESE VIOLATIONS.
SO BEYOND THE DUE PROCESS PROBLEMS, THE MORE GLARING REASON THAT YOU SHOULD GRANT THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION IS BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID NOT PROVE ITS CASE.
THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT KYLE WAS TERMINATED FOR CAUSE IS ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ARTICLE 10, SECTION EIGHT SAYS THAT NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION CAN BE TAKEN UNLESS IT'S FOR CAUSE IT'S EXPRESSED IN WRITING.
AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
AND THAT'S THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THAT MEANS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MUST TELL KYLE IN WRITING WHICH RULES HE BROKE AND WHAT HE DID TO BREAK 'EM.
THEN IT HAS TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING TO YOU THAT HIS ACTIONS VIOLATED THE RULE THAT IT WROTE ON THE NOTICE.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T DO THAT FIRST.
IT FAILED TO PROVE THAT KYLE KNEW THAT HE COULDN'T WORK IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM.
IT'S THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THERE'S SOME RULE AGAINST DOING ANY TYPE OF WORK WHEN YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE RULE THAT THEY'RE STANDING ON.
YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WHEN YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE.
IN FACT, CHIEF KIMBALL ADMITTED SEVERAL TIMES AT TRIAL THAT THERE WAS NO WRITTEN RULE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T WORK WHILE ON SICK LEAVE.
HE JUST CLAIMED THAT THERE'S SOME UNWRITTEN RULE OUT THERE.
THEN HE WAS ASKED HOW KYLE'S SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS UNWRITTEN RULE, AND HE COULDN'T ANSWER.
HE JUST SAID HE KNEW ABOUT IT.
SO THEN HE WAS ASKED WHETHER HE EVER TOLD KYLE ABOUT THE UNWRITTEN RULE.
BUT HE SAID SOMEBODY WOULD'VE TOLD HIM.
THE QUESTION THEN IS WHO, WHO TOLD HIM? THEY DIDN'T BRING ONE SINGLE WITNESS UP HERE TO TESTIFY THAT HE OR SHE EVER TOLD KYLE ABOUT THE UNWRITTEN RULE THAT YOU CAN'T WORK WHILE YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE.
THEY DIDN'T BRING ONE, THEY DIDN'T BRING A SINGLE DIRECTIVE OR ANY DOCUMENT OR ANYTHING THAT SHOWS IN ANY WAY THAT KYLE WOULD'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS UNWRITTEN RULE.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN BRING ANY FIREFIGHTERS UP HERE TO SHOW YOU THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THIS RULE.
I MEAN, IF EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANY WORK WHATSOEVER WHEN YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE, THEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE BROUGHT EVERYBODY UP HERE, OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY UP HERE TO SAY, EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS.
IT WAS THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE THAT THIS UNWRITTEN RULE EXISTS AND THAT KYLE KNEW ABOUT IT AND THEY PRESENTED ZERO EVIDENCE TO SATISFY THAT BURDEN OF PROOF.
NOW, UH, SO AT TRIAL THEY, THEY SAID THAT KYLE ADMITTED TO KNOWING ABOUT THE RULE IN HIS PREDETERMINATION HEARING.
OKAY? THEY, BUT THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE.
KYLE EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT JUST LIKE HE EXPLAINED, HE EXPLAINED THERE, JUST LIKE HE EXPLAINED HERE, HE REASONABLY THOUGHT THAT HE COULD DO WHATEVER HIS DOCTOR TOLD HIM HE COULD DO.
AND HIS DOCTOR TOLD HIM TO GET
[00:30:01]
OUT AND BE AROUND PEOPLE.IF THE DOCTOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE HIM OFF WORK, HE REASONABLY FIGURED THE DOCTOR HAD AUTHORITY TO TELL HIM WHAT HE SHOULD DO WHILE HE'S OFF WORK.
KYLE SAID THAT AT THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING.
HE SAID, IF THE RULE IS NO WORK WHATSOEVER, THEN HE VIOLATED THAT RULE.
IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME, THEN I VIOLATED THAT RULE.
BUT HE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS THE RULE.
SO HE DIDN'T ADMIT AT THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING THAT HE, HE KNEW ABOUT THE RULE.
HE SAID, LOOK, IF YOU'RE TELLING ME NOW THAT THAT'S THE RULE, OKAY, FINE, I WENT TO WORK.
YES I DID, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I COULDN'T DO ANY WORK WHATSOEVER.
BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THEY DIDN'T PROVE THAT THERE'S A RULE.
THEY DIDN'T PUT A RULE, THE RULE ON THE NOTICE THAT THEY GAVE HIM EVEN AN UNWRITTEN RULE.
THEY DIDN'T PUT IT ON THE NOTICE AND THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY RULES OF NOT DOING THIS.
THEY CAN'T PROVE THAT KYLE KNEW ABOUT THIS UNWRITTEN RULE.
I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN UNWRITTEN RULE ANYWAY IN A TERMINATION HEARING IS RIDICULOUS.
I MEAN, THE RULES APPARENTLY IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO TERMINATE KYLE OVER, BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO WRITE IT DOWN SOMEWHERE.
IT JUST FLOATS AROUND IN THE ETHER.
NOW, SINCE THEY DON'T HAVE A RULE THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT WORKING WHILE ON SICK LEAVE, THEY HAD TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO PUT ON THEIR NOTICE.
SO THEY CAME UP WITH LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 33 2500, WHICH DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WORKING WHILE ON SICK LEAVE, BUT IT DOES GIVE REASONS THAT A CIVIL SERVANT CAN BE TERMINATED.
SO CHIEF KIMBALL PICKED SIX OF THOSE REASONS AND HE TRIED TO MAKE KYLE'S WORK AT THE ER FIT INTO ONE OF THOSE REASONS.
NOW REMEMBER, IT'S THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S BURDEN OF PROVING TO YOU THAT ONE OF THESE APPLY.
THEY CAN'T JUST PICK SOME RANDOM REASONS FOR TERMINATION AND CLAIM THAT THEY APPLY.
THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT KYLE WORKING AT THE ER VIOLATED THOSE REASONS, THE REASONS WRITTEN ON THAT NOTICE.
SO THE FIRST REASON THEY PUT UP THERE IS THAT KYLE'S UNWILLING TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER.
I ASKED CHIEF KIMBALL, WHICH DUTY KYLE WAS UNWILLING TO PERFORM, AND HE SAID HIS DUTY TO SHOW UP TO WORK.
AND I ASKED CHIEF, HOW'S HE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A DUTY TO SHOW UP TO WORK WHEN HE IS OFF ON SICK LEAVE? AND SO HE SCRAMBLED AROUND A LITTLE BIT AND HE SAID HE HAS A DUTY NOT TO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE WHILE HE IS ON SICK LEAVE.
BUT OF COURSE WE KNOW THERE'S NO RULE THAT SAYS THAT AT LEAST NO RULE THAT THEY BROUGHT.
SO THEY JUST KEEP GOING BACK TO HE'S GOT SOME DUTY NOT TO WORK WHILE HE IS ON SICK LEAVE.
SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF OF PROVING TO YOU THAT KYLE FAILED TO PERFORM ONE OF HIS DUTIES.
THE NEXT REASON THEY CITED WAS THAT KYLE DELIBERATELY OMITTED SOME ACT THAT WAS HIS DUTY TO PERFORM.
I ASKED CHIEF KIMBALL WHAT DUTY DID HE DELIBERATELY OMIT? HE SAID, KYLE OMITTED TO SHOW UP TO WORK.
I ASKED HIM AGAIN, HOW'S HE EXPECTED TO COME TO WORK IF HE'S OFF OF WORK? BUT HE COULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
THIS OBVIOUS THAT THAT REASON OBVIOUSLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WORKING AT THE ER.
SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT REASON.
THE NEXT REASON THEY CITED WAS AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND THIS IS WHERE CHIEF KIMBALL CAME UP WITH THAT FRAUD THING, THE DOUBLE-DIPPING THING.
HE ACCUSED KYLE OF COMMITTING FRAUD.
AND YOU'LL FIND THIS COMPLETELY LAID OUT IN OUR MEMORANDUM.
THE DEFINITION OF FRAUD, WHICH CHIEF KIMBALL AGREED TO AT TRIAL IS DECEPTION.
FOR FINANCIAL GAIN, YOU HAVE TO DECE TO DECEIVE SOMEONE TO CREATE, TO COMMIT FRAUD.
OKAY? THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRODUCED ZERO EVIDENCE THAT KYLE TOOK OFF OF WORK FOR THE PUR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEIVING ANYONE FOR FINANCIAL GAIN.
OKAY? KYLE DIDN'T EVEN TAKE HIMSELF OFF WORK.
SO DOES CHIEF KIMBALL BELIEVE THAT THE DOCTOR WAS IN, IN ON THIS MAJOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? AND KYLE DIDN'T DO THIS, HIS DOCTOR DID THIS.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS THE BURDEN OF BRINGING SOME EVIDENCE THAT KYLE TOOK OFF WORK IN AN EFFORT TO DECEIVE SOMEONE OR TO DEFRAUD THE DEPARTMENT.
AND THEY DIDN'T BRING ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SORT.
AND THAT'S A FAILURE TO SATISFY THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
THE NEXT REASON IS INSUBORDINATION.
INSUBORDINATION IS REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDERS.
THEY BROUGHT NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF THAT KYLE REFUSED ANY ORDER.
THE NEXT REASON IS DISCOURTEOUS OR WANTONLY OFFENSIVE CONDUCT TOWARD THE PUBLIC OR DISHONEST, DISGRACEFUL OR IMMORAL CONDUCT.
THEY BROUGHT NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THIS.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT KYLE EVER TOLD A LIE OR WAS DISHONEST OR TRIED TO HIDE ANY OF THIS.
HE ACTUALLY DID QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
HE ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE QUESTION THEY ASKED HIM.
HE DIDN'T HIDE THIS IN ONE LITTLE BIT 'CAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK HE DID ANYTHING WRONG.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DISCOURTEOUS, OFFENSIVE, DISGRACEFUL, OR IMMORAL CONDUCT.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER FAILURE TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
THE LAST REASON IS WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A RULE.
AGAIN, CHIEF KIMBALL ADMITTED THAT THERE'S NO WRITTEN RULE REGARDING WORKING WHILE ON SICK LEAVE.
AND HE FAILED TO PROVE THAT ANY UNWRITTEN RULE EVEN EXISTS MUCH LESS THAT KYLE KNEW ABOUT IT.
[00:35:01]
HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THERE WAS TERM CALLS TO TERMINATE KYLE HERE.THEY CAN'T JUST THROW SOME GENERAL RULES ON THE NOTICE AND SAY THAT HE VIOLATED.
IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THAT THE ACTIONS ON THE NOTICE VIOLATED THE RULE WRITTEN ON THE NOTICE.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID NOT WRITE ANY RULE ON THE NOTICE THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH WORKING AT ER OR WORKING WHILE YOU'RE OFF SICK.
AND IT DEC AND AND, AND THEY DECIDED WHICH RULES TO PUT ON THE NOTICE.
THEY COULD HAVE PUT ANY RULE THAT THEY COULD FIND.
AND NOW, NOW THEY GOTTA LIVE WITH THE, THE DECISION THAT THEY MADE AND WHICH RULES THEY PUT ON THERE.
AND THEY HAVE TO SATISFY THIS BURDEN.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT VIOLATED KYLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND FAILED TO SATISFY ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT KYLE WAS TERMINATED FOR CAUSE.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THE BOARD SHOULD GRANT THE SUMMARY FOR THIS POSITION AND RESTATE REINSTATE KYLE BACK TO HIS JOB BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO OUR STATE CASE IN CHIEF.
NOW, EVERYTHING UP TO THAT POINT AGAIN HAS FOCUSED ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S CASE.
THEY'VE GOT THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THEY DIDN'T MEET IT.
BUT EVEN IF YOU SOMEHOW DECIDE THAT KYLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED AND YOU DECIDE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF, NOW WE LISTEN TO KYLE'S SIDE OF THE STORY.
WHY DID WHAT HAPPENED HAPPEN? THE POINT OF THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING THAT KYLE HAD TO GO THROUGH IS FOR THE CHIEF TO HEAR THE FIREFIGHTER'S REASONS FOR DOING WHAT HE DID.
HE'S SUPPOSED TO DECIDE EACH CASE ON ITS OWN MERIT AND CHOOSE LENIENCY IF THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR WHAT HAPPENED.
THE CHIEF HEARD THE SAME STORY FROM KYLE THAT YOU DID.
KYLE HAD BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED OF A TERRIBLE FELONY.
ALL HE COULD THINK ABOUT WAS SPENDING 20 YEARS IN PRISON FOR SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT DO.
HE WAS PLACED IN A ROOM BY HIMSELF FOR EIGHT HOURS A DAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.
HIS COWORKERS DURING THE FEW MINUTES THAT THEY SAW HIM DURING THE DAY, GOT WORRIED ABOUT HIM AND THEY SAW THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG.
AND THEY SAID, YOU NEED TO GO TO COUNSELING.
HIS COUNSELOR SAID, YOU NEED TO GO TO THE DOCTOR.
THE DOCTOR TOOK HIM OFF WORK AND TOLD HIM, THE DOCTOR TOOK HIM OFF WORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING HIM AWAY FROM THE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT THAT HE WAS DEALING WITH AT WORK.
THE DOCTOR ALSO ORDERED HIM TO BE AROUND PEOPLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
SO KYLE HAD THIS OTHER JOB AT THE ER.
CHIEF KIMBALL TESTIFIED THAT ALL THE FIREFIGHTERS HAVE OTHER JOBS.
HE HAD THIS OTHER JOB AT THE ER THAT HE'D HAD FOR FOUR YEARS, IS A FRENETIC, HIGH-PACED AROUND PEOPLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE JOB YOU CAN HAVE THE PERFECT THING TO DO TO GET HIS MIND OFF OF WHAT HE'S DEALING WITH IN HIS PERSONAL LIFE.
SO HE WENT TO THE ER AT THIS POINT, AS KYLE TOLD YOU, HE WAS SUICIDAL.
HE DID WHATEVER HE HAD TO DO TO SAVE HIS OWN LIFE.
HIS DOCTOR SAID, YOU'VE GOTTA GET AROUND SOME PEOPLE.
HE EVEN TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVES WORKING AT THE ER KEPT HIM FROM KILLING HIMSELF.
AND MENTAL ILLNESS IS A SERIOUS, SERIOUS DISABILITY.
I MEAN, WE LOST A BATON ROUGE FIREFIGHTER JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO TO SUICIDE.
AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN KYLE TOO.
AND THEN WE'D HAVE A LOST ANOTHER LIFE FOR NOTHING.
HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD PICKED A DAY AND TIME TO DO IT.
AND THANK GOODNESS HE DID WHAT HE DID, GOING TO WORK AT THE ER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY WITH THE PEOPLE THAT HE WORKED WITH THERE.
HE WOULD'VE DONE THAT AT THE FIRE STATION, BUT HE WASN'T ALLOWED.
MICHAEL KIMBALL HEARD ALL OF THIS FROM KYLE AT THAT PREDETERMINATION HEARING.
KYLE WEPT THE ENTIRE TIME AT THAT PREDETERMINATION HEARING.
MICHAEL KIMBALL STILL FIRED HIM.
KYLE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T MEAN TO DO ANYTHING WRONG, THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS ALLOWED TO DO WHAT HIS DOCTOR TOLD HIM HE COULD DO.
MICHAEL KIMBALL STILL FIRED HIM.
HE CHOSE THE HARSHEST PUNISHMENT POSSIBLE FOR BREAKING A RULE THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.
YOU HEARD ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, CAPTAIN BEN CASHIO TESTIFIED THAT HE TOOK OFF SICK WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT OF WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SO HE HAD THE INTENT TO DO THIS.
CHIEF KIMBALL DIDN'T EVEN MENTION KYLE'S MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS IN THE TERMINATION LETTER.
A GOOD FIREFIGHTER THAT HAS NEVER ONCE BEEN IN TROUBLE.
WE DON'T KNOW MICHAEL KIMBALL'S NOT TELLING US.
[00:40:03]
THERE WERE GOOD REASONS FOR KYLE TO DO WHAT HE DID.AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOWS THAT HE DID NOT DEFRAUD ANYONE.
THEY KNOW THIS STORY AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE WRONG FOR TERMINATING HIM.
THAT'S WHY THEIR LAWYER KEPT OBJECTING WHEN WE WERE HERE AT TRIAL DURING KYLE'S TESTIMONY, AS HE WAS TELLING YOU HIS STORY, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HEAR IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE WRONG.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHEN SOMETHING IMPORTANT'S BEING SAID AT TRIAL, JUST LISTEN FOR WHEN THE OTHER LAWYERS START OBJECTING.
KYLE DID NOT KNOWINGLY DO ANYTHING WRONG.
THAT'S WHY HE CHOSE TO COME HERE INSTEAD OF SETTLE THIS THING BY RETIRING.
'CAUSE THEY DID OFFER HIM A RETIREMENT.
THEY KNOW, THEY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
THEY KNOW THE STORY AND THAT'S WHY THEY OBJECT TO YOU HEARING THE STORY.
WHEN WE WERE HERE, UH, LAST TIME, THERE WAS A FIREFIGHTER UP HERE WHO WAS FIGHTING A TERMINATION.
AND ONE OF ONE OF YOU, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ASKED HIM, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST TAKE THE TERMINATION AND COME TO US FOR HELP? AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT KYLE'S DOING.
WHEN HE WAS ACCUSED AND ARRESTED FOR A FELONY THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT, HE NEEDED HELP.
MICHAEL KIMBALL WAS THE FIRST PERSON THAT HE CALLED FOR HELP.
CHIEF KIMBALL STUCK HIM IN A ROOM EIGHT HOURS A DAY WHEN HE GOT STUCK IN THE ROOM AND HIS MENTAL HEALTH WAS DETERIORATING.
HE ASKED MICHAEL KIMBALL FOR HELP TO PUT HIM ANYWHERE BUT IN THAT ROOM.
AND HE WAS IGNORED WHEN HE BECAME SUICIDAL, HE NEEDED HELP.
HE WENT TO THE DOCTOR AND THE DOCTOR TOOK HIM OUT OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
NOW THAT THE CHARGES HAVE BEEN DROPPED AND HE'S RETURNED TO WORK, HIS LEGS HAVE AGAIN BEEN CHOPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM.
AND HIS CAREER IS BEING TAKEN AWAY.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. FLINT? I'M, I'M ASSUMING THERE PROBABLY ARE SOME
CAN, CAN YOU TELL US, UH, PERHAPS WHY, UM, MR. FLINT HAD SUCH A NEGATIVE SICK LEAVE BALANCE? UM, WELL THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR HIM.
I KNOW HE BLEW OUT HIS ACHILLES HEEL AND HAD TO HAVE SURGERY AND REPAIR THAT HE'S BLOWN OUT HIS SHOULDER AND HE HAD SURGERY TO REPAIR THAT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL IT, BUT HE'S BEHIND ON HIS SICK LEAVE.
I WILL POINT OUT TO THE BOARD THAT NOWHERE DURING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S CASE IN CHIEF, DID THEY SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEY TERMINATING HIM BECAUSE HE WAS OVER SICK LEAVE THING.
BUT I I BELIEVE HE'S GOT, I REMEMBER AN ACHILLES BLOWOUT.
I REMEMBER A SHOULDER SURGERY YOU LIKE.
I MEAN THERE WAS OTHER STUFF TOO.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? YEAH, NO, WE CAN.
SO ON SEPTEMBER, UM, 13TH OF 2019, I RUPTURED MY LEFT ACHILLES TENDON AND I HAD TO HAVE SURGERY ON THAT.
AND THAT PUT ME OFF FOR 10 MONTHS.
I ALSO HAD TO HAVE BOTH SHOULDERS REPAIRED SINCE 2019.
SO I'VE HAD BOTH ROTATOR CUFFS REPAIRED AND AN ACHILLES TENDON SURGERY, WHICH ALL PUT MY BALANCE NEGATIVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBER? YES, MR. JOHANSEN.
SO AT ANY TIME DID MR. FLINT CONTACT WHILE HE WAS ON SICK LEAVE CONTACT SUPERVISORS AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO LET THEM KNOW THAT HE WAS WORKING, UH, ANOTHER JOB? AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE DID NOT.
AND, UH, BUT I'M SURE THAT HE WOULD'VE HAD SOMEBODY TOLD HIM THAT THAT WAS THE PROTOCOL.
HAD HE KNOWN, I MEAN, IIII HAVE NO IDEA WHY HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.
AND ESPECIALLY WHEN, AS THEY SAY, IF HE WOULD'VE JUST TOLD US, IT WOULD'VE ALL BEEN OKAY.
I MEAN, HE, HE WOULD'VE DONE IT.
I THINK, I THINK THAT WAS JUST A FAILURE OF FOR, FOR THEM TO EXPLAIN TO HIM OR ANY OTHER FIREFIGHTER, THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE.
THE OTHER THING, I HAD A QUESTION.
UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT HE WAS SUICIDAL AND THAT HIS COWORKERS NOTICED THIS, BUT NOBODY CAME FORWARD AT THE MEETING TO MENTION THIS.
HE, HE TESTIFIED THAT HIS COWORKERS NOTICED THAT HE WAS, UM, HIS MENTAL STATE WAS SUFFERING.
AND THEY ACTUALLY DID COME FORWARD.
HE HAD PEOPLE COME FORWARD TO THE TERMINATION HEARING.
TO TO, TO STATE THAT, TO TESTIFY TO THAT.
[00:45:01]
SIX PEOPLE TESTIFY AT THE TERMINATION HEARING THAT THEY NOTICED THIS WITH KYLE.AND, UH, AND, AND, AND, AND I'LL TELL YOU, IT'S NOT OUR BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T DISPUTE THAT HE WAS SUICIDAL.
THEY, THEY, THEY NEVER SAID ANYTHING THAT WE, WE DIDN'T FIGURE THERE'S ANY REASON FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN HIM TO JUST TELL YOU AND NOT TO JUST DRIVE THAT IN THE GROUND SINCE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT.
BUT I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY SENT HIM TO COUNSELING.
THE COUNSELOR SAID, I GOTTA YOU, YOU NEED MORE HELP THAN ME.
DOCTOR SAID, YOU GOTTA GET OUTTA THIS ENVIRONMENT.
YOU GOTTA BE AROUND SOME PEOPLE.
AND ANY FURTHER QUESTION, MR. JOHANSON? I HAVE ONE FOR CHIEF KIMBALL.
OKAY, WE'LL, WE'LL CALL CHIEF MR. FLINT.
I THINK THERE'S STILL, YEAH, THERE'S SOME OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CHIEF KIMBALL.
WELL, I THINK WE'RE GONNA FINISH.
OH, MR. FLINT, WE'LL FINISH AND THEN WE'LL CALL CHIEF KIMBALL.
HE, UH, HE RECOMMENDED THAT, THAT KYLE TAKE OFF, UH, ON SICK LEAVE, UH, BECAUSE OF STRESS CAUSED BY THE CASE THAT HE WAS, UH, UH, HIS CHARGES THAT WERE FILED AGAINST HIM.
HE WAS, HE HAD, HE HAD BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED HERE.
AND WHEN I KEEP SAYING FALSELY, YOU KNOW, THE GIRL THAT DID THIS WAS ACTUALLY IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR COMMITTING FRAUD AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE.
SO HE, THIS IS THE PROBLEM HE'S WORRIED ABOUT AT THE TIME.
AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT QUESTIONING THAT.
I'M JUST QUESTIONING THAT DR. BOWEN SAID TO TAKE OFF ON SICK LEAVE BECAUSE OF THE STRESS YOU WERE HAVING UNDER THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU.
IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT WITH KYLE.
KYLE'S USED TO BEING A FIREFIGHTER.
HE USED TO DOING THINGS YOU FIREFIGHTERS DO.
AND MOVING AROUND AND BEING WITH THE GUYS AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ALL THAT.
BOWDEN SAID, THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR YOUR MENTAL HEALTH.
AND, AND, AND DR. BOWEN, UH, DID NOT TELL HIM TO GO TO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CONTRADICTORY TO SAY, HEY, YOU'VE TAKEN OFF WORK HERE, GO TO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
HE JUST SAID, BE AROUND PEOPLE.
BUT, BUT SPECIFICALLY DR. BOWEN TOOK HIM OUT OF THIS JOB BECAUSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT THAT HE HAD BEEN PUT ON.
SPECIFICALLY, KYLE WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER OFF IF HE'D HAVE STILL BEEN DOING HIS REGULAR FIREFIGHTING JOB.
HE WOULD'VE NEVER TAKEN OFF WORK.
'CAUSE IT WOULD'VE HELPED HIM TO BE AROUND THE GUYS HE TESTIFIED TO THAT IN THE TRIAL.
IT'S LIKE THAT THERE WOULD'VE BEEN NO REASON TO COME OFF WORK IF HE HAD NOT BEEN STUCK IN THAT ROOM FOR EIGHT HOURS A DAY.
IT WAS THAT SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENT THAT HE WAS GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO THE CHARGES THAT HE ASKED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
PLEASE GET ME OUT OF THIS ROOM.
IT WAS THAT SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENT, NOT JUST BEING A FIREFIGHTER, JUST GOING TO WORK.
YOU KNOW? SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING THERE.
SO, AND AT LEADS TO MY LAST QUESTION, IT'LL BE QUICK.
SO, YOU KNOW, IN STATEMENT, I GUESS LINE FOUR OF YOUR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, UH, UH, IT SAYS, UH, THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO SATISFY ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT MR. FLINT COMMITTED OR OMITTED ANY ACT OR PREJUDICE OF THIS DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE.
OR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR POLICY, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A RULE OR REGULATION AGAINST THAT, WOULD HIS ACTIONS BE CON CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY, UH, WORKING PART-TIME WHEN HE WAS OFF SICK IN ONE, WHETHER THERE'S A RULE OR NOT? AND MAYBE YOU COULD JUST ELABORATE ON THAT.
AND HERE'S THE MAIN REASON WHY.
AS CHIEF KIMBALL TESTIFIED, EVERYBODY'S GOT A SECOND JOB.
KYLE HAD ALL, ALL THESE, ALL THESE ER SHIFTS WERE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
IF HE WOULD'VE BEEN WORKING AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, HE WOULD'VE STILL GONE TO THE ER AND, AND TAKEN AND EARNED THAT MONEY AND TAKEN THOSE SHIFTS.
I MEAN, THEY WERE ON THE BOOKS THAT HE DIDN'T GO GET A JOB BECAUSE HE WAS OFF OF THE OTHER JOB.
HE JUST WENT AND DID THE SAME JOB HE WOULD'VE DONE ANYWAY.
SO HAD HE BEEN WORKING AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EARNING MONEY, HE WOULD'VE STILL GONE TO THE ER, EARN EARNED THE MONEY AND DONE ALL THE SAME SHIFTS.
AND HE DIDN'T EVEN TESTIFIED, IF I BEL IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN GET ANY ADDITIONAL SHIFTS AT THE ER.
HE JUST WORKED WHAT WAS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
SO I DON'T THINK IT PREJUDICES THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
'CAUSE HE WOULD'VE GOTTEN PAID FOR BEING A FIREFIGHTER AND WORKING AT THE ER, EITHER, EITHER WAY.
WELL, SO, YOU KNOW, AND IN AGREEMENT WITH CHIEF KIMBALL, THIS IS A BENEFIT THAT FIREFIGHTERS HAVE EARNED OVER YEARS AND YEARS.
THIS IS A, A, A BENEFIT THAT, THAT A LOT OF THEM NEED.
HE ACTUALLY SAID HE WAS OFF 10 MONTHS FOR SURGERY, SO HE NEEDED THAT TIME.
AND WHETHER IT WAS A RULE OR NOT, THE MIS MISUSE OR ABUSE OF THAT SICK LEAVE IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
IT'S NOT IN THE FIREFIGHTER'S INTEREST TO DO THAT.
[00:50:01]
YOU KNOW, EXAMPLES, PHILIP PAT, PAT OSTRO, UH, HE JUST WENT THROUGH, UH, A WORKERS' COMP CLAIM FOR CANCER, FOR FIREFIGHTERS, AND HE NEEDED THAT TIME.SO TO MISUSE OR ABUSE THAT TIME IS JUST, UH, YOU, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT A RULE, I'M SURE THERE'S A RULE COMING, BUT IT, IT, IT'S, YOU CAN'T, YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT.
AND, AND, AND I AGREE WITH THAT.
I, I JUST, I THINK UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT HE DID NOT ABUSE THAT TIME.
I THINK HE NEEDED THAT TIME AWAY FROM THE, THE, FROM BEING PUT IN THAT LITTLE ROOM.
I DON'T THINK THIS WAS AN ABUSE OF THAT TIME.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, HE DID WHAT HE DID TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY SAVE HIS WIFE.
YOU KNOW, IF HE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH WHAT HE WAS GOING THROUGH, HE PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARHEADED.
HE MAY HAVE MADE A PHONE CALL TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT I'M GONNA DO.
BUT HE WASN'T OFF WORK FOR THE FLU.
HE NEEDED THAT TIME BECAUSE IF HE'D HAVE STAYED IN THAT ROOM FOR EIGHT HOURS EVERY DAY, I MEAN, HE REV HE, HE TESTIFIED ONE WEEK WHEN HE WAS OFF WORK AND NOT WORKING AT THE ER, HE CUT HIS GRASS THREE TIMES IN ONE WEEK.
HE NEEDED TO BE DOING SOMETHING.
HE WAS DOING ANYTHING HE COULD.
HE WAS, I MEAN, I'M HIS BROTHER.
HE WAS CALL, HE NEVER CALLS TO HANG OUT WITH ME.
HE CALLED ME TO HANG OUT WITH ME.
I MEAN, HE, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T THINK HE WAS ABUSING THAT SICK TIME.
I UNDERSTAND HOW IT LOOKS THERE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HE NEEDED THAT TIME.
BOWAN RECOGNIZED THAT, THAT HE NEEDED OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR THING, HE TOLD CHIEF KIMBALL PUT ME DOING ANYTHING AND I'LL GO DO IT.
HE WAS BEGGING TO GET OUT OF THE ROOM.
SO I DON'T, I I, I WOULD, I WOULD ARGUE THAT HE DID NOT ABUSE HIS SICK TIME AND HE NEEDED IT TO.
I TURNED OUT I GOT ONE QUESTION.
IS THE SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT REGULATED THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AS, UH, IS IT APPROVED THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR ARE THEY JUST ALLOWED TO GIVE SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT AT WILL? I, AS FAR AS I'VE EVER KNOWN, AND I'VE BEEN THE BROTHER OF A FIREFIGHTER FOR 25 YEARS, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE HE HAS ALL KINDS OF JOBS GENERALLY.
SO, I MEAN, I, I WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT MIGHT BE A BETTER QUESTION ASKED, UH, CHIEF KIM WATT, I DON'T KNOW THE DEFENDANT.
TURN TO HAVE, UH, MR. FLINT, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RECORD CLEAR, WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION ARE YOU ALLEGING? I'M ALLEGING, UH, VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
SO JUST THE GENERAL 14TH AMENDMENT.
AND THERE, THERE ARE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF CASES OUT THERE ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY AND IN LOUISIANA THAT STATE THAT CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THEIR JOB, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE DIFFERENT FROM ME.
YOU KNOW, I IT'S NOT AT WILL EMPLOYMENT.
YOU GOTTA PROVE CAUSE TO TERMINATE ONE OF THESE GUYS.
AND I'M SURE Y'ALL DEAL WITH THAT ALL THE TIME.
AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT'S JUST GONNA BE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
YOU GOTTA HAVE NOTICE THAT MEETS THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF CASES OUT THERE THAT TALK ABOUT THAT.
SO YES SIR, NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
BUT THE NOTICE IS A SPECIFIC NOTICE, A SPECIFIC NOTICE.
YOU HAVE TO, YOU GOTTA, YOU GOTTA TELL THEM WHAT ACTIONS THEY DID AND WHAT RULE THEY BROKE AND THEN YOU GOTTA COME SATISFY YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF OF PROVING THAT THOSE ACTIONS BROKE THAT RULE.
IN THIS SITUATION, THEY TOOK A RULE, A GENERAL RULE, AND THEY PUT A ROUND PEG AND A SQUARE HOLE OR A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE, HOWEVER YOU SAY THAT THEY SAID, YEAH, THIS, THIS BREAKS THE, THIS RULE.
YOU DON'T GET, IF YOU NEED A BLUE CRAYON, YOU CAN'T TAKE A YELLOW CRAYON AND SAY IT'S A BLUE CRAYON 'CAUSE IT LOOKS BLUE TO ME.
YOU GOTTA PROVE TO YOU GUYS THAT THAT YELLOW CRAYON IS REALLY A BLUE CRAYON OR THAT HIS ACTIONS ACTUALLY VIOLATED THE, THE RULE THAT THEY STATED ON THE NOTICE.
AND I'LL POINT OUT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN UNWRITTEN RULE IN THE ER, THEY COULD HAVE PUT THAT RULE ON THE NOTICE AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO.
SO THE RULE THAT WAS ON THE NOTICE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WORKING WHILE ON SICK LEAVE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CONFLATING STATUTORY DUE, UH, DUE PROCESS VERSUS CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS.
IT IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
SO, 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING AT THAT POINT, YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE BREACH OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THE FIREFIGHTERS BILL OF RIGHTS.
IS THAT KIND OF WHAT I'M GETTING AT? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BREACH OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT UNDER, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT'S IN THE FIREFIGHTER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S PART OF IT IN THE FIREFIGHTER'S BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT, UM, THERE IS CASE LAW IN THIS MEMORANDUM THAT, UH, CASES THAT HAVE EXPLAINED EXACTLY WHAT NOTICE THAT YOU HAVE TO, TO GIVE.
[00:55:01]
THERE'S CERTAIN NOTICES THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT IN THERE THAT THEY'VE GOT 60 DAYS.YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOTTA GIVE ENOUGH NOTICE TO LET HIM PREPARE HIS DEFENSE PROPERLY.
SO IF YOU DON'T TELL HIM THINGS LIKE WHEN YOU STARTED THE INVESTIGATION OR IF YOU TELL HIM A LIE ABOUT WHEN YOU STARTED THE INVESTIGATION, OR IF YOU DON'T TELL HIM THINGS LIKE THIS IS THE SPECIFIC RULE THAT APPLIES TO YOUR CONDUCT, HE CANNOT MOUNT HIS DEFENSE.
AND THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS REQUIRES.
WHICH CASE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I MEAN, I SEE JONES VERSUS CITY OF PINEVILLE.
I KNOW THAT'S MOSTLY ABOUT THE DISCIPLINARY LETTER THEN SEMEN, WHICH YOU QUOTE IN HERE.
UH, IT JUST SAYS REASONABLE PARTICULARITY ABOUT THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH HE MAY BE CALLED TO REBUT.
AND THAT, AND THAT'S, THAT, THAT IS LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA BE CALLED TO REBUT? SO IF YOU PUT A VERY GENERAL RULE IN THERE, LIKE THAT SAYS THINGS LIKE, BUT IT SAYS THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO HE CERTAINLY KNEW THE FACTS, RIGHT? YES.
AND HE, AND HE ADMITS THE FACTS AND HE CERTAINLY KNEW THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I MEAN, THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE KIND OF THE SAME THING IN THAT SITUATION.
I I TEND TO AGREE, AND THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT.
I DON'T SEE WHERE, AT LEAST FOR THIS PART OF IT, JUST THIS PART OF THE ANALYSIS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT RULES, ET CETERA.
IT IT JUST TALKS ABOUT THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT HE WAS TERMINATED FOR CAUSE.
CAUSE REQUIRES SOME SORT OF STANDARD TO WHICH YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET.
SO THE RULES, I MEAN, SO OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THEY NEED TO AT LEAST PUT IN A RULE THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH WORKING WHILE YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE.
EVEN IF IT'S AN UNWRITTEN RULE, YOU SHOULD PUT IT IN THE NOTICE AND FAILURE TO DO SO VIOLATES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO PROCESS.
THAT'S MY, I BELIEVE THAT, THAT THE CASES SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT AND THAT IS MY ARGUMENT.
UM, NOW CASHIO, WAS THAT UNDER CHIEF KIMBALL? UH, I, I I DO NOT KNOW, SIR.
DO WE KNOW IF, UH, THAT WAS UNDER A DIFFERENT CHIEF? OKAY.
BUT I, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND I WILL, I'LL ARGUE THERE.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S CERTAIN PRECEDENTS THAT TAKE PLACE THAT FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO, TO DEPEND ON.
AND REGARDLESS OF WHO THE CHIEF IS, I MEAN, I KIND OF SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T CHANGE LEGAL PRECEDENT BASED ON WHO'S ON THE SUPREME COURT OR WHO THE PRESIDENT IS.
WELL, THEY CAN CHANGE IT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? I MEAN, IT'S STILL PRECEDENT AND IT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE THE FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY UPON.
AND I THINK IT'S STILL STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THIS HARSH REMEDY OF TERMINATION.
LOOK, I'LL TELL YOU, IF HE WOULD'VE SUSPENDED KYLE FOR TWO WEEKS, THREE WEEKS, A MONTH OR WHATEVER, KYLE PROBABLY WOULD'VE SAID, OKAY.
WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE HERE RIGHT NOW.
BUT HE CHOSE THE HARSHEST PENALTY THAT THERE IS IN THIS SITUATION, RELYING ON A RULE THAT THEY CAN'T PROVE EXIST.
AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IF KYLE EVER KNEW ABOUT IT.
AND KYLE HAD A VERY REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF HIS DOCTOR SAYS HE CAN DO THIS, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.
I, IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE TO THINK THAT FROM KYLE'S POINT OF VIEW, HE, HE'S NOT PUTTING HIS HEAD IN THE SAND HERE OR TELLING YOU GUYS A LIE.
I MEAN, IT'S REASONABLE TO THINK THAT.
NO, AS FAR AS, AND I, I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT.
YOU SAID THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE CHIEF DIDN'T CARE ABOUT, UH, MR. FLINT AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
THAT, THAT'S JUST YOUR INTERPRETATION OF HIS ACTIONS.
'CAUSE CERTAINLY THE CHIEF NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE CHIEF NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND THIS ISN'T, I'M NOT TAKING PERSONAL SHOTS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD, THAT'S A LEGAL ARGUMENT.
UH, NOW I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON SOMETHING.
YOUR MEM MEMORANDUM, UH, THERE'S NO PAGE NUMBERS HERE, BUT IT SAYS FURTHER, MR. FLINT DID NOT STIPULATE THAT HE KNEW OF THE RULE AS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ALLEGED AT TRIAL.
SO AT TRIAL THERE WAS A STIPULATION, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THE STIPULATIONS THERE, BUT THE STIPULATION BASICALLY SAYS THAT HE SAID HE WAS SORRY HE DIDN'T MEAN TO, TO, TO DO ANYTHING.
UH, AND, UH, THAT HE VIOLATED THE RULE.
AND THEN AT TRIAL, WHENEVER WE WERE MAKING THE ARGUMENT BASICALLY THAT, THAT HE DID THAT HE WASN'T GIVEN KNOWLEDGE OF THE RULE AT THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING, THEY SAID, LOOK, KYLE, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO ANY WORK WHATSOEVER WHEN YOU'RE ON SICK LEAVE.
OKAY? NOT SELLING EBAY DOING TAXES, ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENT FIREFIGHTERS ARE DOING RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO ANYTHING.
[01:00:01]
AND KYLE SAID, WELL, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.I UNDERSTOOD THAT I COULD DO WHAT MY DOCTOR TOLD ME THAT I COULD PHYSICALLY DO.
BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S THE RULE, THEN I GUESS I BROKE THE RULE.
AND THE POINT I'M MAKING IN THE BRIEF THERE IS DON'T TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT HE ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE RULE, THAT HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL.
I MAY NOT HAVE WRITTEN IT AS CLEAR AS I, AS I WANTED TO.
WHY WOULD Y'ALL AGREE TO THE STIPULATION? THAT SEEMS TO, TO SAY GOD.
WELL, BUT THE STIPULATION DOESN'T SAY THAT.
AND, AND I AND, AND, AND IF YOU READ IT CAREFULLY, I THINK THE STIPULATION DOES SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
AND, UH, AND, AND YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT, THAT THIS ME, MS. T AND I WERE, WERE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, HORSE TRADING A LITTLE BIT ON THE STIPULATIONS TRYING TO GET, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE NEEDED.
AND SO SHE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE, THE FACT THAT KYLE DID SAY, LOOK, THE RULE YOU'RE TELLING ME NOW, IF THAT'S THE RULE, THEN I GUESS I BROKE IT.
BUT THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT HE KNEW OR WHAT HE WAS TOLD AT THE PREDETERMINATION HEARING.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT HE KNEW OR WAS TOLD WHEN HE TOOK OFF WHEN HE, WHEN HE WAS TAKING OFF WORK.
BECAUSE IF HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING THAT WAS WRONG, THEN THAT CAN'T BE FRAUD AND HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG AND CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T BE TERMINATED FOR IT.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU GET SOMETHING FOR THAT.
I DON'T, I DON'T, BUT TERMINATION IS TOO MUCH AND I'M, I'M ALMOST DONE HERE NOW.
SO GOOD SEGUE TO THE WHOLE ISSUE OF FRAUD.
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT HOW UH, MR. FLINT WAS BEING PAID WHILE HE WAS ON SICK LEAVE? DOES HIS PAY FOLLOW HIS NORMAL SHIFT OR IS IT JUST MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY? HOW DOES THAT WORK? HE, HE'S PAID, HE'S PAID A SALARY.
HE'S PAID A SALARY AND, AND HE GETS HIS SALARY REGARDLESS.
SO IT'S NOT BROKEN DOWN BY HOURS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO.
I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS WHEN HE WAS WORKING AT THE ER, DID HE KNOW AT THAT POINT I'M ALSO MAKING MONEY AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I, I'M ASSUMING HE, HE KNEW THAT HE WAS GETTING HIS SALARY OR HE INSPECTED THE SALARY TO GO BE DIRECT DEPOSITED INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT.
I, I, I DON'T, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS HE DIDN'T THINK HE WAS DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
SO I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HE WAS SITTING THERE THINKING ABOUT THAT WHILE HE WAS WORKING AT THE ER.
UH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE TESTIFIED OVER AND OVER.
I, I DIDN'T SET OUT TO DO ANYTHING WRONG.
AND I MEAN, AND, AND HE, HE OFFERED TO PAY BACK THE MONEY THAT THE, UM, FIRE DEPARTMENT PAID HIM DURING THAT TIME.
I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO GET ANYTHING OVER ON ANYBODY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHAT HE KNEW AT THAT TIME WAS THAT HE WAS FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE.
HE NEEDED TO GET AROUND SOME PEOPLE, LIKE HIS DOCTOR SAID.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAKING MONEY.
I THINK HE'D HAVE WORKED AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FREE.
I MEAN, IN FACT, HE SAID THAT IF, IF IT WASN'T FOR THAT, I MEAN, NOT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT THE ER FOR FREE, HE SAID THAT IF HE, IF HE HADN'T GONE TO THE ER, HE'D PROBABLY KILLED HIMSELF.
'CAUSE HE'D BEEN SITTING AT HOME DOING NOTHING WITH NOBODY AROUND.
WHILE WE'RE ALL SENSITIVE TO MR. MR. FLINT,
OKAY? IT MATTERS THE CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHICH THIS HAPPENED, OKAY? IF IT WOULD'VE BEEN LIKE, MR. CASHIO, IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.
MR. CASHIO DID IT FOR THE PURPOSE, OR I DON'T WANNA PICK ON MR. CASHIO.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DO IT FOR THAT, THAT TAKE OFF OF WORK IN ORDER TO GO DO SOMETHING THAT PAYS BETTER OR SOMETHING FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.
SO KYLE'S NOT ASKING YOU FOR YOUR SYMPATHY, OKAY? BUT THE FACTS OF THE MATTER IS THAT HE WAS GOING THROUGH SOMETHING THAT CLOUDED HIS JUDGMENT AND WAS LEADING HIM TO A BAD, BAD PLACE.
SO YOU MIGHT NOT TAKE SYMPATHY INTO, TO CONSIDERATION, BUT I, I WOULD URGE YOU TO TAKE REASON INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE REASONABLE RESPONSE TO, TO WHAT WAS GOING ON IS EXACTLY WHAT KYLE DID.
AND MY LAST QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT MR. FLINT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR? OR IS THIS JUST A, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING? NO, HE, HE TAKES PERFECT, COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT WAS WHAT THAT, THAT, UM, STIPULATION WAS ALL FOR.
HE'S LIKE, LOOK, I, I'M SORRY, I I DID NOT MEAN TO DO ANYTHING WRONG.
I MEAN, HE WAS, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS DIDN'T GET TO SEE THE PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING, BUT IT WAS BRUTAL.
HE IS EXTREMELY SORRY FOR THIS.
HE IS BEEN A FIREFIGHTER HIS WHOLE CAREER.
WHEN HE WAS A LITTLE KID, ALL HE WANTED TO DO WAS BE A FIREFIGHTER.
I PLAYED FIREFIGHTERS WHEN I DIDN'T WANNA PLAY FIREFIGHTERS MY WHOLE LIFE BECAUSE HE WANTED TO PLAY FIREFIGHTERS.
[01:05:01]
FOR ANY OF THIS GOING ON.HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE RIGHT HERE TODAY.
YOU KNOW, WE BEGGED FOR ANY, ANY TYPE OF SETTLEMENT THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE HIM TO LEAVE THE FIRE SERVICE.
SO YES, HE TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE AND HE ADMITS THAT HAD HE KNOWN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, HE WOULD'VE DONE THIS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
BUT I HOPE HE WAS STILL GOING TO WORK AT THE ER BECAUSE THAT WORK AT THE ER SAVED HIS LIFE.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY REDIRECT FROM THE POINT OF THOUGHT? UH, REBUTTAL? REBUTTAL? I'M SORRY.
MAY IT PLEASE THE BOARD AGAIN.
I WANTED TO FIRST MENTION THAT THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE THAT OBJECTIONS ARE WHEN SOMEONE IS RIGHT.
HOWEVER, AS ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN IN ANY LEGAL HEARINGS, KNOWS OBJECTIONS ARE MADE WHEN THERE MAY BE AN ERROR IN LAW OR FACT OR A WITNESS BEING CALLED.
SO JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE OBJECTS A LOT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT PERSON IS MISTAKEN OR THAT THAT PERSON IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
THAT'S UP TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS.
SO IF MS. SKIT DID OBJECT A NUMBER OF TIMES, THAT SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST HER FOR THOSE REASONINGS.
IN REGARDS TO THE DUE PROCESS STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, THE DATES THAT WERE INDICATED WAS THAT THE NOTICE GAVE A FALSE START TO THE INVESTIGATION.
THE NOTICE DID NOT INFORM MR. FLINT.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE HIS INVESTIGATION.
THE LETTER THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEE WAS ON JANUARY 31ST, AND HIS PREDETERMINATION WAS IN FEBRUARY.
SO THERE WAS NO GRIEVOUS HARM TO THE EMPLOYEE AS FAR AS THE 60 DAYS NOTICE IS CONCERNED AS FAR AS THE 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED WITHIN THE 60 DAYS AND THERE WAS NO HARM THAT WAS DETRIMENTAL TO THE EMPLOYEE ON THE ERRONEOUS DATE THAT WAS MENTIONED IN REGARDS TO BEING STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RULE THAT WAS INDICATED.
UM, REVISED STATUTE 33 2500, WHICH IS INDICATED ON THE, UH, TERMINATION NOTICE INDICATES NUMBER ONE WAS UNWILLINGNESS OR FAILURE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER.
YOU CAN'T PERFORM YOUR DUTIES IF YOU'RE NOT AT WORK.
BUT THE BIGGER THING IS WHEN YOU'RE NOT AT WORK, THE RULE STATES IT IS THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION.
WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF POSITION? ANYBODY WITH CITY PARISH WORK OR ANYBODY IN GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT WE HAVE JOB SPECIFICATIONS.
THOSE JOB SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDE FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES OF THE CITY, PARISH, THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, MUNICIPAL BODY, AND YOUR DEPARTMENT.
AND ONE OF THOSE DEPARTMENT RULES WAS BROUGHT UP LAST TIME, WHICH IS RULED 2.9 0.4 SICK LEAVE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH STATES THE EMPLOYEE IS TO REMAIN AT HOME FOR THE ENTIRE 24 HOUR PERIOD.
SHOULD THE EMPLOYEE VISIT THE DOCTOR OR PHARMACY, IT SHALL BE INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO NOTIFY THE ASSISTANT CHIEF ON DUTY BEFORE LEAVING THEIR RESIDENCE.
SO THERE IS A STATED RULE AS FAR AS THAT INFORMATION IS CONCERNED.
LET ME OBJECT AND, AND I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE.
I WAS EXPECTING THEM TO BRING IT UP.
OH, IT WASN'T AT TRIAL, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT UP.
CHIEF KIMBLE, I BELIEVE IS AGREEING WITH YOU.
THAT RULE IS, AND, AND WE CAN GO INTO WHERE THAT RULE STANDS AT THE MOMENT RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THAT RULE IS IN EFFECT AT THE MOMENT.
HOWEVER, WHEN I ASKED STEVE KIMBALL, DO YOU HAVE A WRITTEN RULE THAT APPLIES HERE? HE SAID, NO.
AND SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT, THAT NOW THE EVIDENCE IS CLOSED, THAT THEY CAN COME BACK AND BRING UP ANOTHER RULE.
HE'S, HE'S RIGHT THAT THAT OBJECTION IS, UH, SUSTAINED.
AND, AND THE REASON FOR BRINGING IT UP IS JUST THAT IT WAS UNDER THE DUTIES OF HIS, WE CAN JUST MOVE, MOVE ON FROM IT, WHICH ARE JUST THE DUTIES OF POSITIONS OF ALL EMPLOYEES IN A GENERALIZED STATE.
THAT JUST BECAUSE, UM, SOMEBODY MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT THE RULE DOES NOT MEAN THE RULE DOES NOT EXIST.
FOR INSTANCE, UH, SPEEDING OR ANY OTHER GENERALIZED TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS, MOST OF US UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS NO, UM, IN THE STIPULATIONS, IT INDICATES TO A NUMBER EIGHT, HE ADMITTED THAT WORKING IN THE ER DID TECHNICALLY VIOLATE THE RULE.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THAT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON BY BOTH COUNSEL AND BY APPRECIATION IS THAT DR. BOWEN DID NOT TELL HIM NOT NOT TO WORK, BUT TO BE AROUND OTHER PEOPLE.
OF WHICH CHIEF KIMBALL HAS INDICATED THAT.
AND HE DID IN HIS, UH, LAST TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS ONE TIME IN PASSING WHERE, UM, THE EMPLOYEE ASKED TO BE STATIONED AT STATION 15.
UM, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE DEPARTMENT THEMSELVES ARE THE ONES THAT SENT THE EMPLOYEE TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE, WHICH THEN PLACED HIM INTO THE SICK LEAVE STATUS.
IT WAS NOT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
[01:10:01]
ALLOWED TO MOVE AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS MAY HAVE ALLOWED SOMEONE ELSE TO WORK.BUT NOT CHIEF KIMBALL, THE CHIEF DOES CARE, WHICH IS WHY HE SENT HIM TO THE DOCTOR IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN HE KNEW ONE TIME IN PASSING IN THE HALLWAY.
UM, AND CAUSE DOES REQUIRE THE STANDARD AND THAT STANDARD IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ITS CONSTITUENTS AND THE RESULT OF 2,173 HOURS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE SOME POTENTIAL MEDICAL ISSUES OR REASONS, BUT FOR A 20 YEAR EMPLOYEE TO SAY THAT THEY WERE UNAWARE OF A RULE OR TO HAVE A NEGATIVE BALANCE DOES REFLECT UPON THE CITIES AND THE TAXPAYERS AND THE DEPARTMENT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD? OH, CHIEF CAMPBELL WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE THING JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
UM, WHEN MR. FLINT AND I, KYLE HAD A CONVERSATION ONE DAY ABOUT HE WANTED TO GET OUT OF HEADQUARTERS AND GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND DUE TO THE ISSUE OF THE PENDING FELONY CHARGES, WE DON'T PUT THOSE MEN AND WOMEN ON THE STREETS.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE KEPT HIM IN THAT ASSIGNMENT.
SOMETIME LATER WE DID GET NOTIFIED THAT MR. FLINT WAS IN A VERY BAD SPOT IN HIS LIFE AND WE IMMEDIATELY TOLD THEM TO GO SEE THE, UH, ACTON.
THERE WAS DE UH, DEPUTY CHIEF EDGES AT THE TIME.
HE WAS, UH, THE LEADING THE DEPARTMENT.
'CAUSE WE WAS OUT TO GET MR. FLINT SOME HELP THROUGH OUR SAFETY DIVISION AND SEND HIM TO THE PROPER ASSISTANCE.
I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT PART.
THAT WE DID DO WHAT WAS BEST FOR HIS WELLBEING AT THAT TIME.
I THINK I SAW SOME INDICATION THAT THE BOARD HAD QUESTIONS.
NO, MRS. THOMAS, UH, THE SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT, IS IT REGULATED THROUGH YOUR DEPARTMENT? DO YOU HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE FOR IT? NO, SIR.
'CAUSE WHEN OUR GUYS, WHEN THEY LEAVE THE FIRE SERVICE, THEY GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE, LIKE LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOU'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH BRPD.
OUR GUYS ARE WORKING FOR THEIR SELF OUTSIDE THE FIRE SERVICE.
SO THERE'S NO REGULATION WHY TERMINATION? WHY, WHY TERMINATION? WHY NOT 90 DAYS, 85 DAYS? WHY WAS IT TERMINATION? THE REASON I CHOSE WITH TERMINATION IS TO, WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST OF OUR PEOPLE IN OUR DEPARTMENT ABUSING OUR SICK LEAVE.
AND WE HAVE WENT OVER AND OVER WITH PEOPLE TO TRY TO RECTIFY OUR ABUSE OF OUR SICK LEAVE.
THIS PERSON KNOWINGLY WENT AND WORKED SOMEWHERE ELSE WHILE HE WAS OFF SICK.
AND TO SAY THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FACT FACTUAL.
AND WE HAVE TO SHOW THE GOOD, GOOD TAXPAYERS MONEY OF USING IT IN THE RIGHT FORM AND IT'S NOT RIGHT TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY.
ALRIGHT, IT COMES BACK TO THE BOARD.
AND WHAT'S THE BOARD'S? UH, PLEASURE.
WE HAVE THE, UH, OPTION OF COURSE, UH, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION OR WE CAN DISCUSS IT HERE.
I SECOND I HAVE A MOTION THEN BY TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND A SECOND ROLL CALL.
WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND UM, WE WILL RECONVENE FOLLOWING THAT ACTION.
A MOTION TO RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSIONS IN ORDER.
I SO MOVE SECOND BY MR. LEMON.
SECOND BY MR. JO HENDERSON THAT WE RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION WHILE IN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS NO MOTIONS WERE MADE, NO VOTES WERE TAKEN.
AND WE NOW COME BACK TO OUR REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD.
UM, THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, WELL, HOLD ON.
WE GOTTA COME OUT EXECUTIVE SESSION.
DO THE POLL CALL MR. JOHANNES WHO PRESENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, UM, AND HAD CAUSED BASED ON LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 33 POINT 25, PARAGRAPH A SUBSECTION THREE.
HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE PUNISHMENT IS
[01:15:01]
NOT COMMISERATE WITH THE OFFENSE AND WOULD MODIFY, UH, THIS TO A 14 DAY SUSPENSION AND AWARD BACK PAY.YOU HEARD THE MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
ARE WE READY FOR THE VOTE? DISCUSSION.
THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE WHOLE, UM, THING IS THAT I, I BELIEVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT NEED TO DEVELOP POLICY, UH, CLEAR POLICY TOWARD THE SICK LEAVE MR. RICKS.
SO, SO ON AGAIN, THE, UH, THE POSITION OF, OF THE MISUSE OF SICK LEAVE, UH, HAS TO BE ADDRESSED.
UM, UH, YOU, YOU CAN'T, UH, THE PUBLIC'S NOT GONNA ALLOW, THE LEGISLATURE'S NOT GONNA CONTINUE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO, UH, MISUSE SICK LEAVE.
UH, AND YOU STILL MAINTAIN IT OR RETAIN IT.
SO IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
UM, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS THE CASE, I DO, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PENALTY WAS, WAS HARSH FOR MR. FLINT AND I DO BELIEVE HE NEEDS HIS JOB BACK.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE BOARD? EVERYONE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE MOTION? YES SIR.
IN THAT CASE THEN WE ARE READY TO VOTE.
I ALSO MOVE THAT, UH, UH, THE BOARD AUDIT, THE BATTERY OF FIRE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOP A WRITTEN SICK LEAVE POLICY WITHIN 60 DAYS AND PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THEY WOULD PRESENT THAT AT OUR AUGUST MEETING.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? DO THAT, I'LL SECOND THAT.
AND YOU WANT THEM TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS MISUSE SITUATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
MISUSE SECONDARY EMPLOYMENT AND CORRECT.
YOU HEARD THE MOTION? UM, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
THE BOARD IS GOING TO ASK THAT THE ATTORNEY WILL ALLOW, DRAW UP A FINDING OF FACTS ON THE FIRST MOTION AND PRESENT THAT TO THE BOARD AT ITS NEXT MEETING.
AND WITH THAT, THAT ENDS UP THE CHAIRMAN? YES.
UH, FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO THE BOARD AND, UH, AT THIS TIME I'D, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 33 25 0 1 0.1, WHICH, UH, GIVES THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO AWARD, UH, ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE, UH, INSTANCE THAT THE BOARD OVERTURNS A DECISION BY THE, UH, BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ISN'T THAT ONLY IF THEY ACTED IN BAD FAITH? I'M JUST GONNA MAKE MY MOTION AND LET IT STAND THERE.
IT'S ONLY IF THEY ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
WELL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL READ, I'LL READ THAT REAL QUICK.
AND, AND JUST FOR THE BOARD'S, WHEN AN APPEAL IS TAKEN BY AN EMPLOYEE IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE PURSUANT TO REVISED STATUTE 33 25, OH POINT 25 0 1, TO A MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
AND THE BOARD DETERMINES IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, THAT THE CORRECTIVE OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WAS WITHOUT JUST CAUSE JUST AS PROVIDED IN RS 33 25 0 1, THE BOARD MAY AWARD TO THE APPEALING EMPLOYEE ATTORNEY'S FEES TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 IN ANY ONE APPEAL.
SO AS, AS I READ IT, IT SAYS, AND AND I BELIEVE THAT, THAT THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE TERMINATION WAS WITHOUT JUST CAUSE THERE WAS A CAUSE FOR TERMINATION AND THERE WAS INSTEAD CAUSE FOR SUSPENSION.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD, I I I THINK YOU IN ERROR THERE.
WE DID FINE IN JUST CAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T THINK THAT THE PUNISHMENT FIT TO, AND REGARDLESS IT WOULD STILL BE DISCRETIONARY UP TO THE BOARD.
THANK YOU AS TO WHETHER OR NOT Y'ALL DID IT.
SO SINCE HE MADE THE MOTION, Y'ALL HAVE TO RULE ON THE MOTION THEN.
BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO DENY IT.
I, I'M, I'M, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD DENY IT.
AND WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? DO WE NEED THE MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? YES.
WELL THEN AS, AS THE CHAIR, I, I'LL MOVE THAT.
[01:20:02]
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE ATTORNEY'S REQUEST.
THE MOTION CARRIED? MOTION CARRIES? YES, SIR.
AND I'M SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.
MS. ELENA HAS A, A QUESTION AND BOARD, WHEN WOULD THE EMPLOYEE BE, UH, COME TO, TO COME BACK TO WORK? WHAT DATE? SO WE WERE GONNA LEAVE THE ACTUAL IMPOSITION OF THE 14 DAY SUSPENSION UP TO YOU GUYS.
I KNOW SOME APPOINTING AUTHORITIES JUST DEDUCT IT FROM THE TIME HE'S BEEN GONE.
AND SOME JUST REIN REIMBURSE FULLY AND THEN GO FORWARD.
IT, THAT PART WOULD BE UP TO YOU GUYS.
AND WOULD IT BE ACCEPTABLE TO WHERE WE WOULD HAVE IT AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD AND THEN WE WOULD RETROACTIVELY APPLY THAT TIME TO THE 14 DAYS AND THEN FOR THE BACK PAY SO THAT HE WOULD COME BACK TO WORK AS SOON AS THE DOCUMENTS ARE SIGNED? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
I JUST WANNA DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE BOARD.
AND THAT ACTION ON THE 14 DAYS IS NOT APPEALABLE, CORRECT? NO.
HE COULD APPEAL IT IF HE, IF HE DISAGREES WITH IT.
BUT WOULD THAT BE A WORK AGREEMENT? BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A ACTION OF THE BOARD.
SO THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN AGREEMENT.
HE CAN APPEAL IT IF HE WANTS TO.
YEAH, CERTAINLY YOU ALL CAN APPEAL IT IF YOU GUYS WANT TO.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GONNA SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT APPEALING IT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE ARE DEFINITELY NOT APPEALING IT.
JUST DOTTING THE I'S AND CROSSING THE T'S.
UNDERSTAND ON THE RECORD NOW, SO, OKAY.
AND WITHOUT A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS IN ORDER, DO I GET A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN MR. AND SECOND BY MR. RAY THAT WE ADJOURN SO THE MEETING STANDS ADJOURNED.