8. Consider Unopposed Motion to Continue Appeal of Officer Woodard due to witness availability to June 23, 2025, regular meeting.

[10. Reconsider January 13, 2025, decision regarding the Motion for Summary Disposition concerning officers Troy Lawrence Sr., Douglas Chutz, and Todd Thomas.]

RECONSIDER JANUARY 13TH, 2025. DECISION REGARDING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION CONCERNING OFFICER TROY LAWRENCE, SENIOR DOUGLAS SHOOTS AND TODD THOMAS MR. DARRAH. YEAH, SURE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT, I GUESS, AND SOME GUIDANCE HERE.

ON JANUARY 13TH, THE BOARD CONSIDERED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION THAT WAS FILED BY THREE FORMER OFFICERS.

IT WAS CHALLENGING TERMINATIONS BASED ON ALLEGED POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS ISSUES.

SO, I GUESS WHAT THAT MEANS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT FAMILIAR IS THAT THEY ESSENTIALLY WANT US TO OVERTURN THEIR DISCIPLINE ON A TECHNICAL ISSUE OF PROCESS AND HOW THE INVESTIGATION WAS HANDLED.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. THAT'S JUST WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

SO, AFTER FULL BRIEFING AND ARGUMENT, THE BOARD ENTERED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DELIBERATE, DISCUSS, RECEIVE SOME ATTORNEY CLIENT ADVICE, ET CETERA, WHICH IS COMMON AND APPROPRIATE.

PARTIES WERE PRESENT, COUNSEL WAS PRESENT. THERE WAS NO OBJECTION, BUT UPON RETURNING, THE BOARD DENIED THE MOTION.

SO, THERE WAS A MOTION SUMMARY DISPOSITION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

THE BOARD DENIED IT. THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT ESSENTIALLY, THERE JUST WASN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AT THAT TIME. NOT SAYING EITHER SIDE WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, JUST THEY COULDN'T.

[00:15:03]

THE BOARD COULD NOT MAKE THAT DECISION AT THAT POINT.

SO, AFTER THE FACT, SOMEONE FILED A CHALLENGE ALLEGING THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WASN'T PROPERLY NOTICED UNDER OPEN MEETINGS LAW. AND THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY. OKAY. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

I DON'T THINK THAT THE BOARD DID ANYTHING WRONG AT ALL.

BUT I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY AT THE LAST MEETING, OUR PRIMARY JOB IS TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

WE COULD SPEND THOUSANDS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS FIGHTING ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE RIGHT, OR WE COULD JUST SIMPLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE HERE TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, RESOLVE IT THE BEST WE CAN, AND I HOPE WE'LL DO THAT.

SO, WITH THE BOARD IS DOING TODAY, IT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY.

WE VACATED THAT DECISION ON JANUARY 13TH, AND WE SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO COME HERE TODAY TO RECONSIDER THAT MOTION IN OPEN SESSION AND OPEN SESSION. IT'S BASED SOLELY ON THAT JANUARY 13TH RECORD.

SO, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY NEW EVIDENCE, ANY NEW ARGUMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S JUST, AGAIN, TO STATE ON THE RECORD WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID AT THE LAST HEARING AND PRETTY MUCH MOVE ON FROM THERE.

IT'S AN AUTHORIZED APPROACH. IT REPRESENTS A STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCEDURAL REMEDY IN MY MIND, AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY.

IT MAY NOT COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE LAWSUIT, BUT IN MY MIND, IT'S THE MOST RESPONSIBLE PATH WE CAN TAKE.

THE QUESTIONS SO FAR. I KNOW I'VE SAID A LOT, NO QUESTION, BUT JUST FOR OUR NON-ATTORNEYS ON THE BOARD.

MR. DARRAH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN RECONSIDERING IT, IT'S NOT ONLY GIVING AN EXPLANATION FOR WHAT WAS DONE, BUT ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD, AT LEAST IN THEORY, HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY DID PREVIOUSLY AND GIVE ANY JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THAT THAT THEY SEE FIT. THIS IS A FULL RECONSIDERATION, NOT SIMPLY US COMING BACK IN AND EXPLAINING WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID.

I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, IT'S NOT A HEARING PER SE, BUT IT IS A RECONSIDERATION.

OKAY. SURE. YES, SIR. GOOD MORNING. I'M JOHN MCCLENDON AND I REPRESENT TODD THOMAS, ONE OF THE OFFICERS. I'M ALSO AUTHORIZED HERE TODAY TO BE ON BEHALF OF KYLE KERSHAW AND BRANT STOCKSTILL.

THEY REPRESENT THE OTHER TWO OFFICERS. MY RECOLLECTION FROM THE JANUARY 13TH HEARING WAS THAT YOU DID GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS INAPPROPRIATE. BUT WHEN Y'ALL CAME OUT, YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO RESCHEDULE IT.

TO HEAR TESTIMONY IS WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO. I DON'T THINK A DECISION WAS MADE.

IT WAS. IT WAS DENIED IT TEMPORARILY. BUT Y'ALL WANTED TO HEAR LIVE TESTIMONY.

AM I NOT CORRECT ABOUT THAT? THAT IS NOT MY RECOLLECTION.

MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT I BELIEVE I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE THE MOTION DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION.

AND BUT THEN SAYING THAT WE WANTED TO SET FOR THE FULL HEARING, FOR THE FULL HEARING.

THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT OCCURRED. WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE MINUTES, BUT THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

BUT THAT WE DID WE DID DEFINITIVELY HAVE A VOTE.

AND I BELIEVE IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME, MR. RICKS OR I CAN'T REMEMBER.

NO, MR. THOMAS, I BELIEVE, VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION, AND IT ULTIMATELY IT THE MOTION FAILED 4 TO 1.

WELL, TO MY RECOLLECTION, I, I GUESS WE HAVE SOME MINUTES THAT WE'LL CLEAR THAT UP.

I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO COME BACK ON THE ON THE SUMMARY PROCEEDING AND HEAR TESTIMONY.

BUT REGARDLESS, MY MAIN OBJECTION TO WHAT THIS BOARD IS DOING TODAY IS AFTER JANUARY THE 13TH, WE FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

AND ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THIS BOARD IS DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION.

YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION ANYMORE.

SO, I OBJECT TO ANYTHING THAT Y'ALL ARE DOING TODAY.

YOU JUST DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION. AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD BEFORE I THINK IT WAS THE [INAUDIBLE] CASE WHERE THE SAME THING HAPPENED.

SO, I JUST WANT TO ENTER THAT OBJECTION TODAY THAT YOU REALLY YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER TO DO ANYTHING TODAY BECAUSE OF THE APPEAL.

SO, TO BE CLEAR, I DOUBT MR. RAINES WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE AN OBJECTION, ASSUMING MY RECOLLECTION OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING IS CORRECT.

AND WE DID, IN FACT VOTE AND HAVE A MOTION THAT PASSED TO DENY THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, AT WHICH POINT WE NO LONGER HAVE JURISDICTION.

IT MEANS WE ALSO DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO VACATE OUR PREVIOUS DECISION, WHICH SIMPLY MEANS IT REMAINS IN FORCE.

WE'VE DENIED YOUR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

I ASSUME MR. RAINES WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ALLOWING THAT TO MAINTAIN, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE.

SO I THINK YOUR MOTION WHEN Y'ALL MADE THE DECISION TO VACATE, THAT WAS AFTER WE FILED THE APPEAL.

I DON'T THINK Y'ALL HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT AND THAT I HAVE NO OPINION ON, BUT I'M CONFIRMING.

YES, OUR MOTION TO VACATE DID OCCUR AFTER YOU LOST YOUR APPEAL.

[00:20:04]

I THINK THE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION IS TO LET IT PLAY OUT IN THE 19TH JDC, BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE JURISDICTION OF IT, AND THEN WHATEVER HAPPENS THERE, WE MAY BE. WE MAY COME BACK HERE.

I DON'T KNOW, THEY MIGHT SEND US BACK HERE, BUT I YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE HOW RELEVANT IT IS AT THIS POINT, BUT I MY MISS MARY JANE MARCANTEL, JUST REMINDED ME THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY SELECTING DATES FOR TESTIMONY ON THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

NO, NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION WELL, MAYBE THERE'S SOME MINUTES WE CAN CHECK. YEAH.

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

RESPECTFULLY, WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 13TH? THEY FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY IT CAN GO.

IT CAN EITHER BE GRANTED OR DENIED. YOU DON'T COME BACK TO HEAR TESTIMONY.

WELL, LET ME FINISH. I'LL LET YOU SPEAK. YOU DON'T COME BACK TO HEAR TESTIMONY ON A SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. ALL WE DID IS WE DENIED THE MOTION.

AND THEN I WAS CLEAR TO SAY. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG.

I SAID THAT THE BOARD IS NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG. IT'S JUST THAT BASED ON THE RECORD, WE CAN'T MAKE THIS DECISION. THERE WAS. SO, WHENEVER WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO SET A NEW DATE, THAT WAS FOR THE HEARING ON THE OF THE APPEAL, THE MERITS.

THAT WAS WHAT THAT WAS FOR. YOU DON'T TAKE TESTIMONY ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

THERE IS NO SITUATION WHERE YOU DO THAT SO THAT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

SO NOW CAN I SAY SOMETHING ON THAT POINT BEFORE.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. IN FACT, WHEN WE CAME HERE ON JANUARY 13TH, I WAS LIKE, WHAT ARE WE DOING? REMEMBER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHIEF PAUL WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

AND I'M LIKE, WHAT ARE WE DOING? YOU DON'T TAKE TESTIMONY ON SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

THOSE WERE MY CORE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE EVER STARTED.

I WAS WONDERING WHY WE WERE DOING THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT THIS BOARD WAS PREPARED TO HEAR TESTIMONY.

BUT WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT SOME OF THE WITNESSES COULDN'T BE HERE.

WHAT? AND WE CAN CHECK THE MINUTES. BUT MY DISTINCT RECOLLECTION IS Y'ALL SAID, LET'S GO FORWARD WITH THE HEARING.

IF THERE'S ENOUGH JUST ON ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, WELL, IF WE CAN DECIDE IT, THEN.

BUT IF NOT, THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND HEAR TESTIMONY.

I KNOW THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. IT'S GOT TO BE IN THE MINUTES SOMEWHERE.

EVEN IF WE SAID, LET'S COME BACK AND HEAR TESTIMONY.

RIGHT. THAT CAN ONLY MEAN AS A MATTER OF THE LAW.

THAT IS A HEARING ON THE MERITS. THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO INTERPRET.

WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE DIDN'T FILE THE MOTION, SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE NOW YOU'RE SAYING WE FILED THE MOTION, AND IT SEEMS WEIRD. YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S WHY THE MOTION WAS DENIED.

BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE TESTIMONY. YOU CANNOT TAKE NEW EVIDENCE ON A SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

I WAS CONFUSED, AS YOU WERE. I WOULD LIKE TO CHECK THE MINUTES.

AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 13TH? I KNOW WE HAVE THEM IN AN EMAIL. IT'S ON VIDEO.

THAT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER. YEAH. ALL RIGHT, I WILL.

I'M THE. YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE THIS IS JUST AN EXERCISE IN SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.

BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE MAYBE I'M CORRECT, MAYBE I'M INCORRECT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. BUT MY DISTINCT RECOLLECTION.

MR. DARRELL, I THOUGHT THE SAME THING YOU DID. IT'S LIKE YOU DON'T TAKE TESTIMONY ON A SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

THAT'S WHY I WAS SO CONFUSED THE FIRST TIME. HOW CAN THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION BE GRANTED IF YOU CAN'T TAKE TESTIMONY? NO, YOU DON'T. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON A SUMMARY.

I UNDERSTAND. MY QUESTION THEN IS HOW COULD IT EVER BE GRANTED? THAT'S WHY I WAS EQUALLY CONFUSED. AND MAYBE MR. RAINES CAN CHIME IN. I WAS AS EQUALLY CONFUSED WHEN Y'ALL SAID Y'ALL CAME BACK AND SAID, WE NEED TO HEAR TESTIMONY.

I WILL MAYBE, I GUESS, POINT OUT SOMETHING TO MY COUNSELOR, WHO IS A FINE ATTORNEY, WAS THAT IT WAS THEIR MOTION, AND THEIR MOTION SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.

AND YOU WOULD JUDGE THE WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY AND ALL THAT.

THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR. WELL, YOU SAID IT COULDN'T BE GRANTED BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY NEEDED TESTIMONY, AND WE KIND OF TOOK THE POSITION IF THEY NEED TESTIMONY.

THIS IS NOT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION KIND OF CASE.

SO I WOULD AGREE IT'S NOT ONE WHERE IT CAN BE GRANTED.

AND YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE NOT ARGUING IN FULL HERE BECAUSE WE AREN'T WE HAVEN'T FILED AN OBJECTION.

WE HAVEN'T PREPARED A RESPONSE TO IT. BUT I MEAN, JUST OFF THE CUFF, I WOULD AGREE, IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE TESTIMONY, IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE YOU DO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION. WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO GO TO THE MERITS. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, IF YOU REMEMBER, I ACTUALLY CALLED YOU BEFORE THE HEARING AND SAID, I AGREE WITH YOU. AND I SAID, WHY ARE WE HAVING TESTIMONY? I REMEMBER THIS ALL WELL. THE MINUTES ARE GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH, BUT I WILL STAND HERE AND TELL YOU MY RECOLLECTION OF WHEN Y'ALL CAME BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. YOU SAID WE WANT TO HEAR TESTIMONY ON THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION, WHICH EQUALLY CONFUSED ME.

BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO GET THOSE MINUTES.

HOW CAN I GET THEM? I JUST REACH OUT TO SOMEBODY.

HOW WOULD I GET. YEAH. YOU JUST MAKE A REQUEST.

SOMEONE HELP ME! WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE HEARING? JANUARY 13TH. JANUARY 13TH. THE FEBRUARY MINUTES.

[00:25:02]

YES. YEAH. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW DETAILED THE MINUTES ARE, BUT I SURE WOULD. AND I CAN WATCH THE VIDEO AS WELL AS THIS LADY POINTED OUT TO ME.

SO, BUT WE'RE HERE TODAY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT Y'ALL ARE DOING.

I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. I OBJECT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE JURISDICTION, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION AS TO WHETHER WE HAD TO CHOOSE DICKSON OR NOT.

SO YEAH, SURE. ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE. SO, UNDER LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 33:2477, I BELIEVE.

SO, WE'RE ABLE TO RECONSIDER ANY DECISION THAT WE MADE.

THAT'S THE LAW. NOW, GENERALLY, I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN SOMETHING IS APPEALED, YOU DO LOSE JURISDICTION.

THE CRITICAL LEGAL QUESTION THEN BECOMES CAN YOU APPEAL FROM THE DECISION THAT THEY TOOK? THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT I'VE HAD WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS ON THE EMPLOYEE SIDE.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORD APPEAL, THAT MEANS THERE IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.

THAT MEANS THAT THE CASE IS OVER. AND THAT'S WHAT AN APPEAL IS.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE NOT SEEKING AN APPEAL. YOU'RE SEEKING REVIEW.

OKAY. IT'S CALLED SUPERVISORY REVIEW. AND THAT IS DISCRETIONARY.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAY HAPPEN. AND THEN THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ACCEPTS IT.

THERE'S A WHOLE DRAWN OUT PROCESS. NOW, THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, CAN YOU EVEN SEEK REVIEW OF A NON-FINAL DECISION IN FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE? I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN A LOT OF STATES, CIVIL SERVICE, NOT IN THE LOT, ALL OF THEM, YOU CANNOT. WHENEVER A SUMMARY DISPOSITION IS DENIED, YOU CANNOT SEEK REVIEW OF THAT BECAUSE THE CASE ISN'T OVER, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO THE MERITS. OKAY. SO, TO SAY THAT WE'VE BEEN DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION, I THINK IT IS INCORRECT. NOW, TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WE LET THEM GO FIGHT ABOUT IT. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SAYING THAT WE'VE BEEN DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION.

IN THIS SITUATION, THERE WAS A DIRECT ATTACK ON WHAT THE BOARD DID.

THE BOARD COULD NOT JUST SIT AROUND AND WAIT FOR THEM TO GO FIGHT.

THE BOARD HAS TO EXERCISE ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.

THAT'S HOW WE GET HERE. THE ACTUAL PROPER COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE THAT WHATEVER THEY'VE GOT PENDING AT THE 19TH, JDC SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO FINAL JUDGMENT.

THIS BOARD ACTUALLY RETAINS THE JURISDICTION, AND WE KEEP IT.

WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO PRIOR TO COMING HERE IS THAT THEY WOULD JUST WAIT AT THE 19TH JDC UNTIL WE MADE THIS DECISION.

SO, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED, ACTUALLY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTION.

AND MR. MCLENNAN, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY HAPPY TO SEND IT TO YOU.

BUT JUST SO IT'S NOT IN A VACUUM, THE MINUTE ENTRY IS MUCH LONGER.

I'M SKIPPING ALL OF IT PERTAINING TO THE HEARING BUT READING DIRECTLY FROM THE MINUTES.

AFTER THE BOARD CAME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, CHAIRMAN ROBERTSON ROBINSON CALLED FOR A MOTION RECONVENING THE HEARING.

MOTION MADE BY JOSHUA NEUVILLE, SECONDED BY BRADLEY RICKS. ROLL CALL BY BOARD SECRETARY. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION MADE BY JOSHUA NEUVILLE TO DENY APPELLANTS.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION. AND SECONDED BY MICHAEL LEMMING.

ROLL CALL BY BOARD SECRETARY. THE MOTION PASSED.

BOARD MEMBER JOHN THOMAS VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION.

OR WHAT THE MINUTES REFLECT. SO WHAT? WHAT? REMEMBER WE WENT BACK AND FORTH.

WHAT WERE THOSE DATES? SO, THE HEARING THAT WE WERE HAVING THAT DATE WAS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, AT WHICH POINT WE DENY YOUR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

YOU ARE NOW TO BE SET FOR A FULL HEARING IN THE SAME WAY THAT ANYONE WOULD BE, EVEN IF THEY.

BUT TO BE CLEAR, A HEARING ON THE MERITS, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER APPELLANT WOULD BE.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I DO WANT TO GO WATCH A VIDEO, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE SOMETIMES, AS YOU KNOW, MINUTES AND TRANSCRIPTS ARE DIFFERENT, OF COURSE, BUT I THE ONE WHO MADE THE MOTION, I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT I MADE IT FAIRLY CLEAR.

BUT IF I DID NOT, PLEASE. WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE CLEAR AND CORRECT AND HONEST WITH EVERYONE.

WHAT Y'ALL THOUGHT WERE HAPPENING, AND I'M WILLING TO APOLOGIZE IF I'M WRONG.

IS THAT WHEN WE. WHEN YOU DENIED IT, YOU WERE SETTING IT FOR A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS.

RIGHT. OKAY. IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE HAD A HEARING SET TODAY, IT GOT CONTINUED.

BUT THAT WAS A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS. WE BELIEVE THAT AFTER WE DENIED YOUR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, THAT WAS NOW DISMISSED. IN THE SAME WAY, IF WE HAD DENIED A MOTION FOR TO SUPPRESS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU THEN SET IT FOR TRIAL. WE WERE SETTING IT FOR A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS AT THAT POINT.

MAYBE I'M GETTING OLD. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER IT THAT WAY, BUT I UNDERSTAND.

SO ARE WE ON SOLID GROUND TO RECONSIDER? I'LL DEFER TO OUR.

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE. OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS?

[00:30:06]

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THEN IS THAT YOU GUYS PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AS TO WHETHER TO GRANT OR TO DENY THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION. I THINK THAT ACTUALLY THE EXERCISE WE WENT THROUGH KIND OF EXPLAINS THE BOARD'S DECISION ALREADY, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND. AND MR. CHAIR, IN IN LIGHT OF THE RECONSIDERATION, I MOVE ONCE AGAIN TO DENY THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION FOR THE REASONS I BELIEVE I ARTICULATED LAST TIME, WHICH WERE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE STILL LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS OF CREDIBILITY THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE SCOPE OF THAT HEARING, AND THEREFORE THAT THAT WAS WHY I MOVED TO DENY THAT MOTION AND THEN SET IT FOR A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS.

CHAIR ACCEPTS YOUR MOTION. ANY SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT.

SECONDED. OKAY. BY MR. RICKS. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE? CERTAINLY.

SO I AM MOVING TO. TO BE CLEAR, THE APPELLANTS MOVED.

THEY FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION. I AM MOVING TO DENY THAT MOTION FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE GIVEN THAT I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS OF CREDIBILITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND FOR THE BOARD TO THEN MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR A SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

AND THEREFORE, I MOVE TO DENY THEIR MOTION AND TO THEN SET IT FOR A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE WITNESS TESTIMONY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. THOMAS? YES, SIR. MR. DRAKE? YEAH. SO I JUST AND IN LAYMAN TERMS TO ME, BASICALLY WHAT WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY WAS THEY WERE THROWING A HAIL MARY PASS, TRYING TO PERSUADE THE BOARD TO APPROVE THAT SUMMARY DISPOSITION, WHICH WE REALLY, TRULY CANNOT DO BECAUSE WE HEARD ARGUMENTS, BUT WE DIDN'T HEAR ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY FROM OTHER PEOPLE.

SO, I MEAN, THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO GO SO WE COULD WAS TO WAS TO DENY THAT AND THEN HAVE A HEARING TO HEAR THE ACTUAL TESTIMONY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I GET WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND IT WAS A HAIL MARY.

BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE'VE GOT TO HEAR THE FACTUAL TESTIMONY FROM PEOPLE.

SO THAT'S MY OPINION OF WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID.

AND SO. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT. AGAIN, YOUR DECISION IS NOT SAYING THAT THE APPELLANTS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, RIGHT. IT'S SIMPLY SAYING THAT AT THAT MOMENT WHEN THEY FILED THAT MOTION, THE DECISION WAS NOT RIGHT. YOU COULD NOT MAKE THAT DECISION.

RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. THEY CAN FILE IT AGAIN LATER WHEN NEW EVIDENCE IS IN THE RECORD.

BUT AS WE SAT THERE ON JANUARY 13TH. THE BOARD DID NOT GRANT THAT MOTION, SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

ANY FURTHER COMMENT? NO FURTHER COMMENT. AND LET US THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION CONCERNING THE THREE OFFICERS. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

I WOULD DO A ROLL CALL. OKAY. AND, SECRETARY, CAN YOU DO A ROLL CALL VOTE? WE DO? YES. I BELIEVE, MR. RICKS, I BELIEVE I SECOND.

YEAH. OKAY. MR.. MICHAEL LEMMING. YES. MR.. JOHN THOMAS.

NAY. MR.. BRADLEY RICKS. YES. DOCTOR. ROBINSON.

YES. ATTORNEY JOSHUA NEWVILLE. YES. WE. THE MOTION PASSES. THIS. WE'LL MOVE THEN TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.

[11. Consider the Adoption of Resolution regarding Executive Session.]

CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

MR. DARRAH. ALL RIGHT. JUST TAKING A MOMENT TO EXPLAIN WHY THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING THE RESOLUTION.

THERE'S A RESOLUTION THAT'S BEEN HANDED OUT TO EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.

AND I GUESS SO WHEN THE BOARD HEARS AN APPEAL, WHETHER IT'S ABOUT A SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR OTHER DISCIPLINE OR OTHER ISSUES, YOU GUYS ARE NOT JUST BOARD MEMBERS AT THAT POINT.

YOU GUYS ACTUALLY GO INTO A POSITION OF JUDGES.

ALL RIGHT. YOU GUYS ARE FINAL DECISION MAKERS UNDER LOUISIANA LAW, AND YOUR JOB IS TO BE LAWFUL,

[00:35:02]

FAIR, AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS.

MOST OF THE TIME, YOU GUYS ARE HEARING HOURS OF LIVE TESTIMONY.

WE ALLUDED TO THAT EARLIER, REVIEWING DOCUMENTS TAKING UP COMPLEX, SOMETIMES IRRELEVANT FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS, OFTEN FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME RIGHT THERE IN THE HEARING.

SO IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO YOU GUYS. IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THE EMPLOYEE, IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OR EVEN TO THE PUBLIC TO EXPECT YOU GUYS TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS WITHOUT ANY TIME TO REFLECT.

THINK ABOUT IT, INVESTIGATE THOSE ALLEGATIONS.

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE A LITTLE BIT MORE. ET CETERA.

SO THAT'S WHERE EXECUTIVE SESSION ACTUALLY COMES IN.

IT'S JUST A BASIC, NORMAL PART OF GOOD DECISION MAKING.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN WHEN A JUDGE GETS UP BEFORE MAKING A RULING.

CALLS FOR A RECESS. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN A JURY GOING BACK INTO THE BACK TO DELIBERATE.

IT'S JUST BEING PATIENT AND THOROUGH. OKAY. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT IT IS NOT IT'S IT'S NOT LIKE A FREE WHEELING THING. IT'S LIMITED BY LAW.

NO NEW EVIDENCE GOES IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. NO ARGUMENTS ARE MADE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

NO FINAL DECISIONS ARE TAKEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

EVEN WHEN THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHARACTER, COMPETENCE OR HEALTH, THE EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION HAPPENS IN PUBLIC. OKAY. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THOSE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO THE LAW WHEN IT COMES TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

IT'S NOT ABOUT HOLDING ANYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC.

IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCESS FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED, INCLUDING YOU GUYS.

OKAY. NOW, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THESE DECISIONS DO AFFECT PEOPLE'S CAREERS THAT AFFECT PUBLIC TRUST.

IT AFFECTS HOW THE DEPARTMENTS OPERATE. WE CAN'T NOT GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

IN MY MIND, IT'D BE UNFAIR FOR YOU GUYS TO JUST HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS OFF THE CUFF.

THE BOARD'S LOYALTY IN MY MIND AND MY LOYALTY IS THE COUNCIL IS NOT TO ANY SIDE OR OUTCOME.

IT'S NOT TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, IT'S NOT TO THE EMPLOYEE.

IT'S JUST TO THE SIDE OF FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY.

SO IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHY WE'VE I'VE PUT TOGETHER THIS RESOLUTION BASED ON YOU GUYS'S INSTRUCTION, I'D ASK THAT YOU GUYS KIND OF REVIEW IT. IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS, ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE.

LET'S CHANGE IT. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DECIDED TODAY.

WE CAN FIX IT TO ANOTHER DATE. I JUST WANT IT TO BE CLEAR SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ACCESS FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHY WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I THINK GOING FORWARD, WHEN PEOPLE APPEAL, WE CAN SEND THEM THIS RESOLUTION SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING WHEN WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I JUST NEVER WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE IS QUESTIONING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO AVOID THE PUBLIC AT ALL. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MAKING REASONED, THOUGHTFUL, CAREFUL AND CORRECT DECISIONS. THAT'S THAT'S MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS. MR. RICKS? YEAH, AND I THINK I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, JOSH TO COME UP WITH THIS TO PROVIDE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT POSSIBLY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITIES AND CERTAINLY APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO REALIZE THAT WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO GO INTO A SPECIAL, I MEAN, AN EXECUTIVE SESSION LIKE THAT.

YOU KNOW, AND TO BE FAIR, LIKE YOU SAID, THEY DO IT IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

JUDGES DO IT. YOU KNOW, THESE APPOINTING AUTHORITIES HAVE MEETINGS WITH THEIR STAFF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

AND THAT'S NOT TRANSPARENT, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE AVAILABILITY TO TALK ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

THAT'S JUST THE WAY LIFE WORKS. AND THAT'S THE WAY BUSINESS WORKS.

SO, THE RIGHT TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IS GIVEN TO US BY STATE LAW, AND IT IS A GOOD THING.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALWAYS, SINCE I'VE, EXCUSE ME, BEEN ON THIS BOARD, FOLLOWED IT TO THE T AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS AND NOT DISCUSS IN THOSE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

ANYONE ELSE DO? THE BOARD MEMBERS FEEL COMFORTABLE IN GIVING THE CHAIR THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN THIS AT THIS POINT? OR DO WE WANT TO WITHHOLD THAT TO OUR NEXT MEETING? I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW, ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO REVIEW UNTIL MAYBE THE NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE IT DOES REQUEST THAT THE CHAIR SIGN IT.

RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S MORE THAN REASONABLE.

YEAH. GOOD. OKAY. OKAY. IS THERE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS?

[00:40:02]

AND WE'LL PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, AND HOPEFULLY AT THAT POINT WE WILL COME TO A DECISION.

AGENDA ITEM 12. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ONGOING LITIGATION.

[12. Consider Motion to enter into Executive Session to discuss ongoing litigation: Brandon O’Neal vs. City of Baton Rouge, Docket Number C-759828, pending in the 19" JDC.]

BRANDON O'NEILL VERSUS CITY OF BATON ROUGE, DOCKET NUMBER C759828 PENDING IN 19.C. AND OF COURSE, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS PERMITTED UNDER LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES 42:1782 AND LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NUMBER 18-0144.

AND MR. CHAIR, I WILL SO MOVE. BEING THIS IS PERTAINING TO PENDING LITIGATION.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. NEUVILLE THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSES. NAY, WE SHALL ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THERE WILL BE NO VOTES TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND WE WILL GIVE YOU A REPORT WHEN WE RETURN.

CHAIRMAN ROBINSON, I'M MOVED TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MR. CHAIR, I WILL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. I NEED A ROLL CALL. OH, WHERE'S OUR SECOND? I'LL DO IT. OKAY, SO, MR. LEMMING. YES, MR. THOMAS.

YES, MR. RICKS? YES, CHAIRMAN. YES. ATTORNEY NEWVILLE.

YES. MOTION PASSES. WE ARE IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I WILL SO MOVE. I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Apr 28, 2025 Fire Police Municipal Board Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item