[*This meeting was joined in progress*]
[2. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda.]
[00:00:03]
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK? WELL, IT'S NOT AN AGENDA ITEM, SO IF WE WANT TO MAKE IT AN AGENDA ITEM, WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.WELL, I WANT TO CONSIDER IT NOW SO THAT WE'LL KNOW WHAT, WHAT GOING TO DO.
AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE AWARE AND I'D LIKE TO DO IT BEFORE WE APPROVE THE AGENDA SO WE CAN HAVE IT AS PART OF THE AGENDA.
WE CAN'T, UH, MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT IT BEING ON THE AGENDA.
SO, SO WE'D HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND THEN CONSIDER IT.
SO CAN WE DO THAT THOMAS? I MOVE TO ADD TO THE AGENDA THE DECEMBER MEETING.
CONSIDER THE DECEMBER MEETING DATE AND TIME.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
AND WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? SHOULD WE HAVE A MEETING IN DECEMBER? UH, AND IF SO, WHAT DATE SHOULD WE CHOOSE? 16TH, NINTH.
I MEAN, 16TH NINE IS SIGNED WITH ME.
I DON'T
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE MAY BE CONTEMPLATING BEING AWAY FROM THE CITY DURING THOSE DAYS.
ARE WE EXPECTING ANYTHING TO COME UP BUSINESS WISE? WELL, ONLY IF WE MAKE IT SO, I MEAN, WE CAN SCHEDULE BUSINESS OF COURSE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO.
YEAH, TRADITIONALLY THE BOARD HASN'T HAD A, A MEETING IN DECEMBER.
IN DECEMBER, UNLESS THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF PRESSING, UH, NEED FOR IT.
BASED ON WHAT I'M SEEING ON THE AGENDA, I DON'T THINK THAT TO BE THE CASE.
UM, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL APPEALS, BUT MOST OF THEM SEEM TO PERTAIN TO ONE CORE ISSUE, WHICH, UH, THE LAWYERS WILL PROBABLY NEED SOME TIME.
AND, UH, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE A 2025 THING.
SO, UM, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO PROCEED WITHOUT A MEETING SCHEDULED.
OF COURSE, IF SOMETHING CHANGES, YOU GUYS CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING.
ALRIGHT, SO WHY DON'T WE, UH, GET A MOTION THAT WE NOT HAVE A FORMAL MEETING OR CALL A FORMAL MEETING FOR DECEMBER, LEAVING THE OPTION TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING IF THE NEED ARISES.
SO, CAN I HAVE MOTIONS TO THAT EFFECT? I MOVE NOT TO HAVE A MEETING IN DECEMBER AND LEAVE THE OPTION OPEN FOR A SPECIAL MEETING AS NEEDED FOR DECEMBER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
AND WE WILL NOT SCHEDULE A MEETING FOR DECEMBER.
SO, WITH THAT THEN LET ME HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGENDA.
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from: September 23, 2024, meeting.]
THREE, CONSIDERED MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2024.THERE IS ONE ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, AND THAT IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
THE LAST SENTENCE WHICH READS, BOARD MEMBER JOSHUA NEWVILLE OFFERED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS FILED BY CRYSTAL DUCKWORTH AS THE APPELLANT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE MODIFY THAT SENTENCE TO READ.
THUSLY BOARD MEMBER JOSHUA NEWVILLE OFFERED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS REQUESTED BY CRYSTAL DUCKWORTH AS THE APPELLANT.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT CHANGE? NO.
DO WE NEED NECESSARILY TO VOTE ON THAT OR CAN WE DO IT BY CONSENSUS? NO, I WOULD VOTE ON IT.
SO LET ME HAVE A MOTION THEN TO, I'LL MAKE THAT CHANGE TO THE MINUTES.
[00:05:02]
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.MOTION CARRIES AND THE MINUTES ARE CORRECTED OR CHANGED.
NOW I NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED MINUTES MOVED BY MR. NEWVILLE THAT WE ACCEPT THE AMENDED MINUTES.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
THE MOTION IS ADOPTED AND THE MINUTES ARE ACCEPTED.
[4. Consider Motion to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms: Baton Rouge Fire Department Baton Rouge Police Department]
FOUR, CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.DO WE HAVE, UH, PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS? YES, IT'S YOUR PLEASURE.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PERSONAL ACTION FORMS FOR THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. LEMON TO ACCEPT OR APPROVE THE ACT, UH, PERSONAL ACTION FORMS. I SECOND.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND PERSONAL ACTION FORMS ARE APPROVED.
[5. Consider a motion to call for an examination by Chief Michael Kimble, Baton Rouge Fire Department- Fire Services and Supply Technician]
FIVE, CONSIDER A MOTION TO CALL FOR AN EXAMINATION BY CHIEF MICHAEL KIMBALL, BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE SERVICES AND SUPPLY TECHNICIAN.I MAKE A MOTION TO CALL FOR A, AN EXAMINATION FOR FIRE AND FIRE SERVICES AND SUPPLY TECHNICIAN MOVED BY MR. LEMON.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND IT.
AND, UM, THE EXAMINATION IS, UM, APPROVED.
[6. Conduct a hearing on behalf of Sgt. Terrance B. Nolan, Baton Rouge Police Department. i. 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.]
SIX, CONDUCT A HEARING ON BEHALF OF SERGEANT TERRANCE, B NOLAN BATON REGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, JUST FOR THE BOARD'S PLEASURE, THIS IS A MOTION BY THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION ON THE INVESTIGATION.
UH, THE LAW ALLOWS 75 DAYS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND APPARENTLY BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT NEEDS MORE TIME.
UH, USUALLY MR. JIM RAINS IS HERE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A MUCH BETTER LAWYER IN THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW FOR, UH,
MS. ELISE, UH, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MS. ELISE.
IS MR. DEWEY OKAY, THERE WE GO.
MR. DEWEY'S HERE ON BEHALF OF SERGEANT NOLAN.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A MIC ON? THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM THERE.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME NOT SO MUCH BETTER.
GOOD MORNING TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS HONORABLE BOARD, DR. ROBINSON.
I'M ALI LALE HERE ON BEHALF OF CHIEF MORRIS AND THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THANK YOU, UH, MR. DARA FOR THE INTRODUCTION.
UM, AS HE STATED, WE'RE HERE ON A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING SERGEANT TERRANCE NOLAN.
UM, BRPD INTERNAL AFFAIRS RECEIVED A COMPLAINT REGARDING SERGEANT NOLAN ON AUGUST 2ND, 2024.
THE COMPLAINT INVOLVED ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER.
SINCE RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS HAS DILIGENTLY PURSUED THE INVESTIGATION, COMPLETING 30 INTERVIEWS SINCE THAT TIME.
NOTWITHSTANDING INTERNAL AFFAIRS ESTIMATES THAT AN ADDITIONAL 10 TO 12 INTERVIEWS, UH, ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION.
ADDITIONALLY, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE INVESTIGATION'S PROGRESS HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY AN WORKPLACE INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR ASSIGNED TO THE MATTER.
UM, THE INVESTIGATOR, UH, SUSTAINED AN INJURY ON THE JOB AND WAS OUT ON MEDICAL LEAVE FROM AUGUST 29TH UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17TH, APPROXIMATELY TWO AND A HALF WEEKS.
UH, HE REQUIRED A SURGERY WITH RESPECT TO HIS WORKPLACE INJURY AS WELL AS A FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURE DUE TO A COMPLICATION OF THAT SURGERY.
SINCE THAT TIME, HE'S HAD ADDITIONAL DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS AND PHYSICAL THERAPY, WHICH ARE CONTINUING AND ONGOING.
UM, THE PROGRESS OF THE INVESTIGATION, AS WELL AS THE INVESTIGATOR'S PREPARATION OF REPORT IS ALSO IMPACTED BY THE FACT THAT HE HAS
[00:10:01]
ONE ARM AND A SLING DUE TO THAT WORKPLACE INJURY.AND SO THAT AFFECTS THE PACE WITH WHICH HE CAN TYPE UP HIS REPORT.
AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, UNDER THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS REVISED STATUTE 40 25, 31 B SEVEN, THE INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 75 DAYS IN THIS MATTER.
THAT WOULD PLACE THE DEADLINE AS OCTOBER 16TH, WHICH IS TWO DAYS FROM TODAY.
UM, AS THE BOARD IS ALSO AWARE, UNDER THE SAME STATUTE, UH, BRPD MAY PETITION, UH, THIS BOARD FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION UP TO 60 DAYS.
AND FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE EXPLAINED HERE TODAY, UH, CHIEF MORRIS AND BRPD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD PLACE THE DEADLINE, UH, A NEW DEADLINE AS DECEMBER, UH, 15TH, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A SUNDAY.
UH, AND SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE NEW DEADLINE BE SET FOR DECEMBER 16TH, WHICH IS THE FOLLOWING DAY, A MONDAY.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
AT THE TIME, UH, THE INVESTIGATOR WAS OUT ON MEDICAL LEAVE AT THAT POINT, COULD ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR INTERVIEWED THE, THE, THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT NEEDED TO BE INTERVIEWED? IT WOULD'VE SUBSTANTIALLY THANK YOU FOR ASKING.
IT WOULD'VE SUBSTANTIALLY IN AFFECTED THE INVESTIGATION, ESSENTIALLY REQUIRING A NEWLY ASSIGNED INVESTIGATOR TO START FROM SCRATCH.
UH, THE INTERVIEWS ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER.
UM, HE HAS TO TYPE UP THE REPORT FOR EACH INTERVIEW.
UM, AND THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS NEED TO TAKE PLACE DEPENDS LARGELY UPON WHO'S ALREADY BEEN INTERVIEWED AND THE FACTS THAT THEY CONVEY TO THE INVESTIGATOR.
BUT AT THAT POINT, THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATOR COULD HAVE JUST READ THE NOTES AND, UH, UH, REVIEWED THE AUDIO FROM THE, THE OTHER INVESTIGATOR AND THEN, UH, MADE A, UH, A DECISION AT THAT POINT.
I WOULD HAVE TO, I CAN'T SPEAK SPEAK TO, 'CAUSE NORMALLY THEY, UM, TAKE THE INTERVIEW INTERVIEWS.
SO AT THAT POINT, HE COULD'VE LISTENED IN TO THE INTERVIEWS AND THEN, UH, AND MADE IT FORMULATE HIS OWN OPINION AT THAT POINT.
HE COULD LISTEN TO THE AUDIO TAPES.
AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL THINGS TO BE LEARNED FROM BEING PHYSICALLY PRESENT WHEN INTERVIEWING A WITNESS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY.
AND TO, UH, BE NOTED FOR THE BOARD, UH, MY, UH, CO-COUNSEL DID REACH OUT TO THE ATTORNEY FOR SERGEANT NOLAN WITH RESPECT TO THIS MOTION, AND HE ADVISED THAT HIS CLIENT DOES NOT AGREE TO THE EXTENSION.
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THOMAS DEWEY ON BEHALF OF, UH, SERGEANT NOLAN.
UH, WHAT HISTORICALLY, AND DR. ROBINSON HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.
IT USED TO BE A 60 DAY, UH, NOTICE FOR THE LONGEST TIME IN THE CODE, AND THEN THEY INCREASED IT, I THINK WAS TWO YEARS AGO TO 75 DAYS, WHICH IS A 25% INCREASE IN TIME TO CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
UH, SO THERE'S BEEN MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TIME ALLOTTED TO THEM, 25% MORE THAN THEY JUST HAD TWO YEARS AGO.
UH, THE REASON YOU HAD THESE TIME ALLOTMENTS WHEN YOU WORK IN THE CRIMINAL PROFESSION OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSION, IS HE'S BEEN UNDER INVESTIGATION SINCE AUGUST 2ND.
WHEN SOMEBODY MAKES AN ALLEGATION SUCH AS THIS, IT'S VERY TAXING ON ANY PERSON TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH SUCH AN INVESTIGATION BEYOND THE STRESS OF TRYING TO CLEAR YOUR NAME AND TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION.
SO THEY GIVE THEM 75 DAYS, WHICH IS TWO AND A HALF MONTHS, UH, THAT HE'S HAD TO GO INTO THIS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH HIS FAMILY, THROUGH HIS OWN, UH, PERSONAL PART.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAD THESE TIME LIMITATIONS.
AND IT HAS TO BE REALLY GOOD REASONS.
UH, I THINK ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS BROUGHT UP THE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE RESOURCES WITH THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THEY HAVE FIVE OR 600 OFFICERS.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE EXACT COUNT IS NOW, WHERE THEY COULD BRING IN PEOPLE TO DO THESE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.
I THINK HE WAS CORRECT AND THAT PEOPLE CAN, IF THESE ARE WITNESSES, THEN THESE PEOPLE CAN BE INTERVIEWED.
AND GIVEN THAT INFORMATION TO THE LEAD DETECTIVE WHEN HE CAME BACK THAT TWO AND A HALF WEEKS THAT HE WAS OUT, WAS THAT ACTUALLY THAT, YOU KNOW, 75 DAYS, HE IS ACTUALLY HAD THAT 25% MORE TIME ALREADY INHERENTLY PUT INTO THIS SYSTEM.
BUT HE HAS, THEY HAVE ACCESS TO OTHER INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER OFFICERS IF THEY NEED TO, AND THEY REALIZE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF WITNESSES.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE EXTREME EX EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO HAVE TO PUT SERGEANT NOLAN THROUGH THIS.
THEY SET THESE TIME LIMITATIONS FOR A REASON.
UH, HE RESPECTFULLY DOES NOT WANT TO KEEP BEING UNDER THE
[00:15:01]
MICROSCOPE AND WOULD LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION CONCLUDED AND CONDUCTED AND HAVE HIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.AND, AND BASED ON THAT, I, I DIDN'T SEE ANY NEW EVIDENCE.
I JUST SAW A LOT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO COUNSEL THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I THINK IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH, THEY SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH IN THE 75 DAYS THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED.
AND I'D ASK THAT THE EXTENSION OF TIME, UH, BE DENIED.
I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MAY HAVE OF ME.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. NEWVILLE? I THINK HE SAID YOU WANTED IT.
I WAS RESERVING DEPARTMENT THAT I WANTED
I'D PROBABLY ALLOW JUST A BRIEF REBUTTAL REAL QUICK AND THEN WE MAKE, I'LL MAKE IT, UH, JUST VERY QUICKLY.
UH, JUST VERY QUICKLY, UH, THERE IS A REASON THAT THE LEGISLATURE EXTENDED THE PERIOD OF TIME FROM 60 TO 75 DAYS IN WHICH TO COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF 15 DAYS.
UM, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT OUR INVESTIGATOR HAS BEEN OUT DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS FOR INJURY SUSTAINED ON THE JOB IS IN EXCESS OF THAT EXTENSION THAT THE LEGISLATOR GRANT LEGISLATURE GRANTED.
AND SO JUST TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD, UM, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, I BELIEVE 18 DAYS MIGHT BE 19 DAYS THAT HE WAS OUT, UH, WHICH IS MUCH MORE TIME THAN THE LEGISLATURE CHOSE TO EXTEND THE INVESTIGATION PERIOD.
UH, SO WE HAVEN'T HAD THE BENEFIT OF THAT EXTENSION.
AND AGAIN, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD GRANT THE EXTENSION OF AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS.
AND IF THIS EXTENSION IS NOT GRANTED, WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE DEPARTMENT'S ACTIONS? THE INVESTIGATOR WILL BE FORCED TO, UH, COMPLETE THE WITNESS INTERVIEWS THE 10 TO 12 INTERVIEWS REMAINING OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS, AND TYPE UP A REPORT WITH HIS ARM AND A SLING, OR PERHAPS DICTATE IT TO A COLLEAGUE, UH, AND HAVE IT COMPLETED BY WEDNESDAY.
THE, UH, QUESTIONS, UH, SO IT BUILDS OFF OF A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.
THE THE CURRENT HEALTH STATUS OF THE INVESTIGATOR IS THAT HE'S AT WORK, BUT AN ARM IS IN A SLING.
AND HOW LONG HAS HE BEEN BACK AT WORK? SINCE, UH, SEPTEMBER 17TH.
AND THAT IS PEPPERED WITH DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS AND PHYSICAL THERAPY, BUT HE IS BACK AT WORK.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. ELISE? WELL, I, NOT FOR MR. ELISE, BUT MR. DEWEY, ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT IF THE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'VE CURRENTLY, UH, GATHERED, THAT THAT MIGHT NEGATIVELY IMPACT YOUR CLIENT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE OTHER THAN THAT.
HE'S ALREADY BEEN UNDER THE STRESS OF BEING UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR TWO AND A HALF MONTHS, WHICH IS VERY TAXING ON YOU MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY, THAT HE HAS TO GO THROUGH IT, ALONG WITH FAMILY MEMBERS THAT HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS.
IT'S, I THINK WHY PEOPLE HAVE, THEY HAVE TIME LIMITATIONS FOR CRIMES.
THEY HAVE TIME LIMITATIONS FOR THESE KIND OF ACTIONS AND WOULD NEED TO BE SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT.
AND WITH DUE RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE, I, I DID SEE THE OFFICER WHO WAS A FRIEND OF MINE, SERGEANT OSBORNE, AND HE MAY BE WEARING A SLING SOMETIMES, BUT I SAW HIM THE OTHER DAY.
BUT LIKE I SAID, SHE, HE, SHE BROUGHT OUT THAT HE HAS OTHER MEANS HE COULD DICTATE IF HE NEEDED TO, UH, THOSE NOTES.
BUT I, I KNOW HE WAS OUT FOR A WHILE WITH THAT INJURY.
BUT AGAIN, THE RESOURCES THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS AVAILABLE TO HIM COULD HAVE OTHER PEOPLE TO ASSIST HIM.
MY CLIENT'S BEEN UNDER THIS INVESTIGATION FOR ALMOST 75 DAYS NOW.
HE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE CONCLUDED AND THEN HAVE THE DUE PROCESS GO FORWARD.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LOUDER MILL.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE DECISIONS.
YOU WANT DUE PROCESS IN A, IN A TIMELY FASHION.
AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR TODAY FROM THE BOARD.
THANK YOU, MR. MR. DEWEY, VERY QUICKLY.
AND WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY MOTIONS, THIS IS ME SUGGESTING OR, OR OFFERING ANYTHING, BUT WOULD SOME OF YOUR CLIENT'S CONCERNS BE SMOOTHED OVER A LITTLE BIT IF INSTEAD OF A 60 DAY DELAY OR EXTENSION, IT WAS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF A 15 OR 21 DAY DELAY TO TRY TO OFFSET SOME OF THE TIME LOST FOR THE INJURIES, BUT TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CLIENT ISN'T TOO PUT BEHIND, UH, THE SCHEDULE? WELL, I APPRECIATE THE, THE POSSIBLE COMPROMISE OR SOMETHING BEING COMING FORWARD.
IT'S, I, I KNOW HIS FEELINGS WHERE IT'S BEEN, HE'S READY TO MOVE ON WITH THIS.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF 15 DAYS, 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS WOULD HELP HIM BE AT EASE.
HE'S READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS, TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO, AND TO MOVE FORWARD AND LET THE CHIEF
[00:20:01]
AND HIS, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD THAT WHEN WE MEET IN FRONT OF HIM FOR A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THAT THEY CAN MAKE, UH, WHATEVER DECISIONS THEY RUN TO BASED ON THE INVESTIGATION THAT INTERNAL AFFAIRS HAS PROVIDED TO THEM.SO I DON'T THINK HE WOULD BE INCLINED TO WANT THAT JUST BECAUSE HE'S, HE'S READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, UH, INFORMATION NOW AND TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR HIS NAME.
BUT WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS BOARD DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT SUCH A REQUEST.
IT WOULD, IT'S UP TO YOUR DISCRETION IF Y'ALL FEEL IT MEETS THE NEEDS.
I'M JUST SAYING, I THINK THESE TIME LIMITATIONS ARE PUT IN PLACE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP SOMEBODY UNDER THIS UNDUE STRESS OF AN INVESTIGATION OF A CLOUD HANGING OVER THEIR HEAD FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.
THAT'S WHY HE'S AN OBJECTION TO IT.
AND WELL, AND MR. DEWEY, AND I'M RELATIVELY NEW ON THIS BOARD, SO PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I'M MISTAKEN, BUT I BELIEVE THAT A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING COULD STILL GO FORWARD EVEN IF AN EXTENSION IS GRANTED OR AM I INCORRECT ON THAT? NO, YOU'RE CORRECT.
I JUST WANTED TO EE EITHER OR.
IF, IF THEY COULD GO FORWARD WITH THEM CONCLUDING IT NOW AND GOING FORWARD IN THE 75 DAY PERIOD, OR IF Y'ALL GRANTED IT.
SO WHAT'S THE BO'S UH, DESIRE? I WILL SAY THIS.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S THREE OPTIONS THAT YOU GUYS CAN CHOOSE FROM.
UH, YOU CAN OUTRIGHT DENY, UH, THE BATON ROUGE IS BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MOTION.
YOU CAN GRANT THE MOTION AS STATED, OR YOU CAN GRANT IT, MODIFY THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.
UM, ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE FOR, UH, THE BOARD.
I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE LAW, IN TERMS OF GRANTING THE REQUEST, THE DEPARTMENT DOES HAVE THE BURDEN OF SHOWING JUST CAUSE UH, FOR AN EXTENSION.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT JUST CAUSE AND THE BOARD GETS TO DETERMINE WHAT JUST CAUSE IS THOUGH.
I THINK THAT'S THE, THE PARAMETERS OF WHERE YOU GUYS ARE WORKING TODAY.
I BELIEVE THAT MY PERSONAL FEELINGS WITHOUT MAKING A MOTION WOULD BE, I BELIEVE THAT JUST CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR A, A SHORT EXTENSION, MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE 15 DAYS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT A 60 DAY EXTENSION OR SOMETHING, 30 DAYS OR LONGER WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN MY OPINION.
UM, THAT'S JUST KIND OF MY PUBLIC THOUGHT OF KIND OF WHERE I AM PERSONALLY.
ANY REACTIONS TO MR. NEWVILLE? WELL, I BELIEVE WE GOT A LOT OF QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS THAT COULD HAVE PICKED UP THE BALL AND HANDLED THE CASE.
I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DENY IT BECAUSE, UH, THOSE TWO WEEKS, SOMEONE ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DOING THE INTERVIEW.
IN THAT CASE, THEN, UM, WE WILL NEED A MOTION FROM SOMEONE AND THEN WE'LL EITHER VOTE UP OR DOWN.
UH, THEN CHAIR, I WILL, I WILL MOVE TO RENT A MODIFIED EXTENSION OF 15 DAYS, WHICH ACCORDING TO MY CALCULATIONS WOULD BE OCTOBER 31ST.
BUT I WOULD DEFER TO ANYONE ELSE ON THAT CALCULATION.
I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. NEWVILLE TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT AN EXTENSION OF 15 DAYS.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, THE MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
THAT MEANS THAT, UH, YOUR MOTION IS DENIED.
I MOVED, UH, DENIED THE EXTENSION.
I HAVE A SECONDARY MOTION THAT WE DENY THE EXTENSION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL? YES.
ANY OPPOSES OPPOSED? NAY, NAY, NAY.
THE MOTION, THE DENIED IS APPROVED.
[7. Consider a request to appeal, a demand for a hearing, and an investigation by the board on behalf of Officer Earnest Jones, Baton Rouge Police Department, Internal Affairs No. 034-24]
MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.CONSIDER A REQUEST TO APPEAL, A DEMAND FOR A HEARING AND AN INVESTIGATION BY THE BOARD ON BEHALF OF OFFICER ERNEST JONES, BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS NUMBER 0 3 4 24.
WILL YOU BE PRESENTING THAT AS WELL? NO.
UM, SO I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE ATTORNEYS FOR, I THINK, IS IT PHILLIP ROBINSON, YOUR ATTORNEY? YES.
AND I SPOKE WITH MR. RAINS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
UH, BOTH GENTLEMEN ARE ON BOARD WITH A HEARING ON NOVEMBER 25TH, THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
UH, SO I WOULD, YOU KNOW, RECOMMEND THAT WE SCHEDULE THE APPEAL, MR. ERNEST JONES FOR NOVEMBER 25TH.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT?
[00:25:01]
UNLESS SOMEONE DISAGREE? ALSO MOVE.MR. NEWVILLE MOVES THAT WE SCHEDULE THE ERNEST JONES HEARING.
I SECOND IT FOR NOVEMBER 25TH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTIONS SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSES? NA, THE MOTION IS CARRIED.
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 25TH MEETING.
[8. Consider a request to appeal, a demand for a hearing, and an investigation by the board on behalf of Corporal Joanell Robinson-Woodard, Baton Rouge Police Department, Internal Affairs No. 41-24]
EIGHT, CONSIDER A REQUEST TO APPEAL, A DEMAND FOR A HEARING AND AN INVESTIGATION BY THE BOARD ON BEHALF OF CORPORAL JOHNELL ROBINSON WOODARD BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS NUMBER 41 24.MR. WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT? HEY, GOOD MORNING.
UH, MR. IVY, HOW ARE YOU? HELLO, SIR.
MR, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? LIKE, IN TERMS OF TIMING? IS JANUARY, IS THAT GOOD FOR YOU? THAT MEETING? UH, IF THAT'S THE SOONEST WE CAN GET A HEARING.
WELL, WE HAVE A MEETING, WE ALREADY HAVE ONE FOR NOVEMBER 25TH.
WE'RE NOT MEETING IN DECEMBER.
THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY.
UH, COULD WE ASK THAT IF FOR SOME REASON YOUR NOVEMBER 25TH, UH, MATTER SETTLES, WE COULD LIKE MAYBE HAVE LIKE A INEFFECTIVE SECOND SETTING? OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE.
UH, AND THEN A FIRST SETTING ON YOUR JANUARY DATE.
SO DOES THE BOARD UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING? SO ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD SCHEDULE MS. WOODARD, MS. WOODARD'S APPEAL FOR NOVEMBER 25TH.
ALSO, IF THE JONES MATTER GOES, THEN WE WON'T HAVE THE APPEAL.
UM, IT'LL BE BUMPED TO JANUARY, AND JANUARY WILL JUST BE LIKE OUR SECONDARY DATE.
IS THAT FAIR, MR. RAVI? UH, YES, SIR.
WHAT IS YOUR, WELL, SPEAKING, WHAT IS YOUR JANUARY DATE? THAT'S THE, THE JANUARY DATE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE? NONE.
SO WE'LL SCHEDULE BOTH HEARINGS ON NOVEMBER 25TH.
IF FOR ANY REASON THAT THE JONES HEARING DOES NOT OCCUR, THEN WE'LL HAVE THE ONE FOR MS. JONELLE ROBINSON WOOD IT.
SO I NEED A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
I, I WILL SO MOVE MOVED BY MR. NEWVILLE THAT WE SCHEDULED, UH, THE JOHNELLE ROBINSON WOOD HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 25TH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTIONS SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? THIS DATE? THE MOTION CARRIES.
AND SO BOTH OF THOSE WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE SAME DATE.
[Items 9 - 11]
CONSIDER A PETITION OF APPEAL ON BEHALF OF CORPORAL DOUGLAS CHUS TERMINATION IA FILE NUMBER 0 4 0 DASH 23.MR. CHAIRMAN, I ACTUALLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU TAKE UP NUMBER NINE, 10, AND 11 TOGETHER.
THEY'RE ALL INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES.
SO, NINE, 10, AND 11 IN GLOBAL? YES.
YOU WANT TO GIVE US A, A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND? YES, SIR.
UM, THE LAWYERS FOR CHUCK AND THOMAS.
AM I MISSING SOMEBODY? HE'S ON.
COME FROM THE MIC PLEASE, SIR.
I'M NOT, IT'S A BAD, IT'S A GOOD HABIT.
BUT, UH, BRENT STOCKDALE REPRESENTING TROY LAWRENCE.
YOUR HONOR, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT KYLE KERSHAW REPRESENTS DOUGLAS CHS AND JOHN MCCLENDON REPRESENTS TODD THOMAS.
IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS WITH JIM RAINS AND THAT WE ARE GOING TO ALL MOVE TO SET THIS MATTER FOR A HEARING ON THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES.
WE HAVE NOT AGREED ON WHAT DATE WE WOULD BE DOING THAT.
UH, IN LIGHT OF WHAT JUST HAPPENED, I'M NOT SURE IF WE COULD GET A SPECIAL SETTING IN DECEMBER, OTHERWISE WE WOULD ACCEPT THE JANUARY DATE.
WE WOULD PREFER YOU NOT TO CONSIDER DECEMBER
SO HE DID ACCURATELY, UH, REFLECT THAT THIS IS, UH, A MATTER INVOLVING SEVERAL OFFICERS, AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME CRIMINAL CHARGES, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THE MATTER.
UM, THERE WILL BE PROBABLY A CONSIDERABLE HEARING REGARDING,
[00:30:01]
UH, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.UM, IT SEEMS PRUDENT THAT WE DEAL WITH THAT ON A SEPARATE DATE.
ASIDE FROM THE ACTUAL APPEAL OF THE DISCIPLINE.
UM, I THINK WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO DO ON THAT ISSUE, IT'S GOING TO, IT'S GONNA GET APPEALED.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS ISSUE, UH, FOR EITHER JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.
UM, YOU GUYS HEARD OUR JANUARY DATE? IT'S THE 27TH, I BELIEVE, OF JANUARY 7TH.
WHAT'S OUR FEBRUARY? BUT AS WE CAN'T GET ANYTHING IN DECEMBER AS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION, I, I KNOW THAT IT APPEARS TO BE THAT WE TRY NOT TO SCHEDULE MULTIPLE HEARINGS ON A SINGLE DATE, BUT WE JUST APPEAR TO BE WILLING TO HAVE TWO HEARINGS IN JANUARY.
IS THERE ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE HEARING SET IN NOVEMBER THAT WOULD DISALLOW THIS TO OCCUR ON THAT DATE? SO IN TERMS OF THE DETAILS OF THE NOVEMBER HEARING, I DON'T KNOW.
UH, BUT DO YOU GUYS THINK YOU GUYS CAN GET THE BRIEFING DONE BY, WITH ENOUGH TIME FOR, UH, THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RESPOND? AND I'M ASSUMING THERE'S GONNA BE WITNESSES, UH, FACT WITNESSES ON THIS ISSUE? WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? CAN WE GET READY FOR WHAT, A NOVEMBER HEARING? YES, A NOVEMBER HEARING.
WHAT DATE DO Y'ALL HAVE IN NOVEMBER? NOVEMBER 25TH.
WE ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER.
WELL, HE'S ASKING IF WE CAN, IF HE'S ASKING IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO SCHEDULE TWO THINGS.
WE ALREADY HAVE TWO THINGS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER.
THAT'S WE ARE, WE ALREADY, WE, ME, LET ME CLARIFY.
WE HAVE JUST APPROVED SCHEDULING ERNEST JONES AND JONELLE ROBINSON WOOD IT ON NOVEMBER 25TH.
IF JONES HEARING OCCURS, THAT WOULD BUMP WOOD IT, CORRECT.
SO IT'S NOT ACTUALLY TWO, IT'S ONE.
BUT THAT TAKES UP BOTH NOVEMBER AND JANUARY.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO SCHEDULE.
AND Y'ALL DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
I MEAN, THINK WE'RE JUST KIND OF EXPLORING IT.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? SO NOW WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO DO NOVEMBER 25TH, COULD THEY EVEN BE READY FOR IT? AND I HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS THAT Y'ALL WOULD BE READY FOR NOVEMBER 25TH.
THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, CAN WE GET IT ALL DONE ON THE 25TH? YEAH, THAT'S MY QUESTION TOO.
YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN.
YEAH, NO, I MEAN THAT I'LL BE READY WHENEVER WE SET IT.
AND COUNSEL, I ASSUME YOUR PREFERENCE IS THAT WE 24TH DO THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE? YES.
AS OPPOSED TO SETTING IT LATER? YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE, UH, FEBRUARY DATE IS THE 24TH.
UH, MR. THOMAS FROM, OR ARE THEY TRYING TO DO IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT, YOU KNOW, CAN WE, CAN WE DO MORE THAN ONE HEARING AT TIME? I, MAN, IT'S, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT JUST EXCEPT YOU MIGHT BE HERE SEVERAL HOURS.
I MEAN, AND WE CAN'T GET A SPECIAL SETTING IN DECEMBER.
UH, WE COULD, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I, I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION TO, TO REVISIT THAT DECEMBER SETTING AND IF IT WORKS FOR EVERYONE ELSE'S CALENDAR, IF THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE I SEE IS WE DON'T HAVE MR. RAINS HERE IN TERMS OF, UH, SCHEDULING.
AND WHAT, UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU, CAN YOU TALK TO MR. RAINS? I DON'T KNOW.
WOULD YOU DO THAT, PLEASE? UM, I CAN DO EITHER ONE OF THAT.
I'M GOOD WITH EITHER THE DATE, THE NINTH, THE 16TH, THE NINTH.
IF WE DO THE NINTH, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, UH, PROBABLY THE AFTERNOON, BECAUSE I'LL BE ACROSS THE STREET ON ANOTHER ONE OF OUR MEMBERS.
OH, SO YOU CAN'T DO THE NINTH.
I'M FREE BOTH DATES, BUT WHATEVER WORKS FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
THE 16TH, THE SIX 16TH WILL BE GREAT.
[00:35:01]
YOU GO WITH THE 16TH.I COULD DO THE SIX TO ALL THE NINTH.
WHAT ABOUT, UH, AND I'M JUST THROWING OUT DATES.
WHAT ABOUT JANUARY 6TH OR SOMETHING? OR THE 13TH? LIKE EARLY JANUARY.
SO WE BEAT TWICE IN JANUARY POSSIBLE.
SO THE, THE, THE, UM, THE ISSUE ON THE, ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW, NOW IS WHERE WE WANT TO TRY AND MEET TWICE IN JANUARY, AN EARLY JANUARY MEETING.
I WAS GONNA SAY, DO YOU GUYS HAVE A PREFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNT? YEAH.
DECEMBER 16TH IS THAT DECEMBER WOULD PROBABLY DECEMBER.
I'M, I'M OKAY WITH, WITH DECEMBER 16TH.
AND WE'RE GONNA CALL MR. KERSHAW AS WELL.
IF WE COULD TABLE THIS FOR A MINUTE.
WE, WE, WE, WE'LL JUST TABLE THIS FALL TEMPORARILY.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL TAKE A RECESS.
IT'S THE LAST THING ON THE AGENDA.
WE'LL JUST TAKE A, LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
I'M SORRY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
WAS THE DATE DECEMBER 16TH? AND WAS THERE ANY OTHER DATE TO BE CONSIDERED? JANUARY 6TH.
WE, WE GOT, WE GOT SOME, WE GOT SOME.
I WAS GONNA GIVE HIM 15 DAYS WHEN I STARTED SIX, BUT THEY EXTENDED BACK IN 20 22, 7, 5.
AND NOW THERE'S TWO DAYS DEADLINE.
AND I, WE HOPE THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT.
I I LOOK AT IT JUST THE ONE PASSED.
[00:43:51]
THE BOARD IS REVIEWED FROM, UM, IN REGULAR SESSION.YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE DECIDED ON A DATE? UH, YOUR HONOR.
WELL, I WOULD LOVE TO SAY WE DID, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE.
'CAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. RAINS CANNOT DO THE DECEMBER 16TH DATE.
AND THEN THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS THAT MAKES JANUARY NOT POSSIBLE.
FEBRUARY DATES, WHAT WAS THE FEBRUARY? FEBRUARY 24TH.
THAT'S ALL WE, I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT WORKS.
SO I'M THE ONLY ONE HAPPY ABOUT IT.
Y'ALL AS A QUICK QUESTION, UH, I DID YOU DISCUSS THE, I THINK IT WAS THE JANUARY 6TH DATE AS WELL, AND THAT DIDN'T WORK? OH, WELL.
DID HE TALK ABOUT THE 13TH? JANUARY 13TH? THAT WAS ANOTHER I I CARD.
[00:45:02]
DO YOU MIND? I'M SORRY.DO YOU MIND CHECKING? BECAUSE LAST THING I WANNA DO IS AGREE TO 16TH SIX AND HAVE TO CONTINUE.
I THINK IT'S GONNA GO AWAY, BUT I'M, I'VE BEEN THERE MANY, MANY TIMES.
SORRY, BUT BECAUSE, BECAUSE THIS IS SO LIKELY TO BE APPEALED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
UH, GET MOVING THIS FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
WE JUST TO GIVE HER A FEW MINUTES TO CHECK WITH MR. HANS.
UM, ARE WE GOOD FOR JANUARY 13TH? THE BOARD? IS EVERYBODY GOOD FOR THE OKAY.
UM, IF I MAY, UH, MR. RAINS HAS INDICATED THAT FEBRUARY 24TH WOULD BE THE PREFERENCE BECAUSE HE ANTICIPATES THERE WILL BE A LOT OF BRIEFING IN THESE THREE MATTERS.
UM, IF THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE, THEN, UH, JANUARY 13TH, HE COULD MAKE THAT WORK.
THE OFFICERS WOULD REQUEST 13.
CHAIRMAN OF I SAID 13TH BOARD MEMBERS.
WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? THE ATTORNEYS ARE ASKING FOR THE 13TH.
UH, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S ASKING FOR JANUARY 20.
BUT HE COULD MAKE THE 13TH WORK.
I MEAN, I'M GOOD WITH THE 13TH.
THAT WOULD BE, WHAT, THREE FULL MONTHS AS OPPOSED TO FOUR FULL MONTHS? I BELIEVE THREE FULL MONTHS SHOULD BE.
IT JUST MEANS WE'LL MEET TWICE IN, IN FEBRUARY.
THESE ARE KIND OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO FEBRUARY 13TH, JANUARY 13TH.
SO MEET TWICE IN JANUARY, NOT FEBRUARY.
SO WHAT'S, UH, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT THEN? I WILL.
SO MOVE, MR. NEWELL MOVES THAT WE SCHEDULE THE APPEALS FOR CHUTS.
I SECOND THOMAS AND LAWRENCE FOR JANUARY 13TH, AND I GUESS WON'T BE A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT A SECOND MEETING FOR JANUARY.
AND I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. LEMON.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AN ORDER, GENTLEMEN.
WE'LL PROBABLY GET YOU GUYS A, A SCHEDULING ORDER TOO, SO THAT WAY IT'LL BE CLEAR AS TO WHEN EVERYTHING IS, UH, SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
MR. LEWIS MOVES THAT WE ADJOURN.