[00:00:02]
>> I CALL THIS MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD TO ORDER.
WE'LL ASK OUR SECRETARY TO MAKE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
[1. Roll Call]
>> YES, SIR. MR. MICHAEL LEMMY?
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS THE TIME THAT WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE FOR THE ITEM ON THE EMS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MATTER.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT UP ON THE AGENDA.
IF YOU WILL JUST HOLD YOUR COMMENTS UNTIL THAT TIME, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
OTHERWISE, ARE THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAS A COMMENT ABOUT ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NO ONE APPROACHING THE PODIUM, WE'LL ASSUME THERE'S NOT.
BEFORE WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA,
[2. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda]
WE NEED TO MODIFY THE AGENDA. JOHN.>> I NEED TO ADD AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO ADD THE DEPUTY CHIEF'S APPLICANTS WITH THE WAIVER FOR PROBATIONAL ASSISTANT CHIEF TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE TEST.
>> WE'LL MAKE THAT MAYBE NUMBER 12, OR 11A.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA WOULD BE TO MOVE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION UP TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOWING THAT AS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5,
FOLLOWED BY AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY. >> [INAUDIBLE].
>> THIS IS FORMALLY ITEM NUMBER 10 ON THE AGENDA.
IT'LL MAKE THE MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF DECEMBER DISPOSITION NUMBER 4 TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AT NUMBER 5, AND THEN HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWING THAT, NUMBER 6.
>> MR. CHAIR, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> THANK YOU. MOVED BY MR. NEWVILLE. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY MR. LEMON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
THIS IS BOTH MODIFICATIONS, GENTLEMEN. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT WAS THE MOTION TO MODIFY THE AGENDA.
I WOULD DO A MOTION TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> PASS THE AGENDA. YES. NOW, I NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT.
>> MOVED BY MR. NEWVILLE. SECONDED BY MR. LEMON THAT WE ACCEPT THE REVISED AGENDA.
>> OPPOSES NAY. THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 IS TO CONSIDER
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes]
THE MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 28TH MEETING.YOU WERE SENT THOSE ELECTRONICALLY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> OPPOSES NAY. MINUTES FROM JULY 28TH ALL ACCEPTED.
GENERAL ITEM NUMBER 4 IS THE CONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY DISPOSITION, MR. [INAUDIBLE]
[Additional Item]
>> GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE ARGUMENTS.
WE GOT A LOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY, SO WE WILL PROBABLY DEFER OR TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR THE TIME BEING AND DEAL WITH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION OR HOWEVER THE BOARD DECIDES TO HANDLE IT AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
>> MR. DARRE, IN THE SCHEDULING ORDER, WE WERE GIVEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR OUR ARGUMENTS. WAS THAT CORRECT?
[00:05:04]
>> IF I HAVE ANY BALANCE LEFT OVER, I'D LIKE TO RESERVE FOR A REBUTTAL.
>> HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
>> I THINK IT WAS 15, BUT IF I HIT 15, SOMETHING'S GONE TERRIBLY WRONG.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, MR. REYES IS 15 SOUND RIGHT TO YOU? WOULD YOU LIKE A TIME CHECK AT A PARTICULAR TIME?
>> AT ABOUT 10 MINUTES, IF I COULD.
>> TEN MINUTES LEFT OR AT THE 10-MINUTE MARK?
>> HOPEFULLY, I WON'T EVEN HIT THAT.
>> THE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE FIRST ON WHAT IT IS WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR.
TODAY IS SOLELY THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE THE EMPLOYEE WAS PROVIDED.
THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED TO ASK IS, DID IT APPRISE WADE HILL OF THE PROPOSED ACTION THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY INTENDED TO TAKE AGAINST HIM, AND WAS IT REQUIRED TO DO SO? ALSO, IS MERELY ACCUSING SOMEONE OF A VIOLATION OF LAW WITHOUT TELLING THEM WHAT LAW THEY HAVE ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED SUFFICIENT NOTICE? NOW, I READ THE REPLY OR THE OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM, AND I HAVE A FEELING I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY FOR.
HOW DID YOU TERMINATE THIS EMPLOYEE? NOT THE WHY. TRUST ME, THEY WON'T TALK ABOUT THE WHY.
I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WHY.
BUT WE'RE NOT HERE FOR THE MERITS.
IF WE WERE HERE FOR THE MERITS, TO BE WITNESSES, WE WOULD BE ASKING TO BE SEQUESTERED. THEY'RE NOT HERE.
THEY SPEND A LOT OF PAPER IN THEIR MEMORANDUM ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND VERY LITTLE ON THE APPLICABLE LAW.
THAT SHOULD BE A RED FLAG TO THIS BOARD.
AGAIN, TODAY ISN'T ABOUT THE WHY, IT'S SOLELY ABOUT THE HOW. WHAT IS THE LAW? IT'S PREMISED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD PRIOR TO BEING DEPRIVED OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INTEREST.
IN THIS CASE, THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INTEREST IS MR. HILL'S TENURED EMPLOYMENT STATUS AS A PERMANENT MEMBER OF THE CLASSIFIED POLICE SERVICE FOR THE BATON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
BUT WHAT DOES THE LAW REQUIRE THE NOTICE TO CONTAIN? LOUDERMILL, IN CASE AFTER CASE AFTER CASE AFTER CASE, TELL APPOINTING AUTHORITIES OR THE GOVERNMENT, THEY HAVE TO TELL THE EMPLOYEE THIS NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.
IN THIS CASE, ALL WADE GOT WAS THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HADN'T EVEN MADE UP HIS MIND.
IF HE HADN'T EVEN MADE UP HIS MIND, AND I'M GOING TO GET TO THE SPECIFICS ABOUT WHAT THE LETTER SAID.
HE HADN'T EVEN MADE UP HIS MIND, HOW DOES HE KNOW WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO? HOW DID HE KNOW WHAT THE INTENDED SANCTION WAS GOING TO BE? LOOK AT THE USE OF THE CONDITIONALS IN THE EXHIBIT.
I BELIEVE IT'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR BOTH PARTIES, WHICH IS THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY LETTER, AND THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY NOTICE OR LETTER, THAT IS SOLELY WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE.
IT'S THE NOTICE PRIOR TO MR. HILL BEING TERMINATED.
LOOK AT THE USE OF THE CONDITIONALS IN THE LETTER.
YOUR CONDUCT MAY FALL BELOW THE STANDARD, AND OF COURSE, CLEARLY, AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAD NOT MADE UP HIS MIND THAT WADE HAD VIOLATED POLICY AT THE TIME OF THE PREVIOUS NOTICE WAS ISSUED.
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DECIDE THAT MR. HILL HAD VIOLATED POLICY PRIOR TO THAT HEARING.
I CITE THE MCDERMOTT CASE, IT WAS ONE THAT WAS HEARD IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.
THERE WAS AN ISSUE IN THE MCDERMOTT CASE WHERE, AT THE PRE-HEARING ITSELF, THEY BRING IN AN EXPERT WITNESS, WALLACE BRITTON.
I'M SURE HE'S APPEARED IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.
TO GIVE AN OPINION AS ON SOMETHING ON USE OF FORCE, AND MR. MCDERMOTT HE AND HIS LAWYER TRYING TO DO WHAT THEY COULD.
THIS BOARD AFFIRMED THE TERMINATION ON APPEAL.
THEY SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, YOU COULDN'T DO THAT.
YOU CAN'T BRING IN A WITNESS AND INTERVIEW THEM AT THE PRE-DIS BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER.
FIRST CIRCUIT SAID, NO, THAT WAS OKAY BECAUSE WHEN THE PRE-DIS NOTICE WAS ISSUED, HE HAD THE CHIEF AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER ACCORDING TO STATUTE.
BUT WE CALL THE POLICE OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH THE LAW DOESN'T CALL IT THAT.
[00:10:02]
HE HAD ALL THE INFORMATION HE NEEDED TO MAKE THE DECISION, AND BY LAW, HE HAD TO BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION BY LAW IS OVER AT THE TIME THE EMPLOYEE IS NOTICED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, WHICH IS WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.ALSO, THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, YOU NEED TO REMEMBER THAT IS NOT FOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION. LOOK AT THE NOTICE.
WADE IS NOT ORDERED TO BE AT THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
EVEN IF HE SHOWS UP, HE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO SAY ANYTHING AT THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOR PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE.
I'M GLAD CHIEF EMERITUS LA DUFF IS HERE.
HE MAY NOT SHAKE HIS HEAD VISIBLY WHERE YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT INTERNALLY, I THINK HE WILL.
THE CLOSEST THE DEPARTMENT EVER GOT IN MY MEMORY SINCE ABOUT 1994, TO TELLING THE EMPLOYEE WHAT THE SANCTION WAS GOING TO BE, WAS AT ONE TIME THE DEPARTMENT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A PRE-TERMINATION HEARING.
FOR SOME REASON, THE DEPARTMENT GOT AWAY FROM EVEN DOING THAT, WHICH, OF COURSE, THEY DID IN THIS CASE.
THERE WAS A VOCIFEROUS RESPONSE FROM THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AS TO WHY I WOULD BE CITING STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAWS.
IT WAS NOT THE FACT THAT IT'S STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, IT'S STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW THAT EMBODIES LOUDERMILL.
THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LANE DECISION.
APPROVINGLY, ALL OF THOSE CASES THAT I CITED SHOW THAT THE COURT NOTED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM AT THE PRE-DEPRIVATION NOTICE, THEY TOLD THE EMPLOYEE WHAT THEY INTENDED TO DO TO THEM.
IN THIS CASE, WADE DID NOT GET THAT.
AS FAR AS THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT, WITH REGARDS TO THE VIOLATION OF LAWS, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY HE WAS TERMINATED. IT'S A CLASS THREE.
IT PROVIDES FOR THAT PARTICULAR SANCTION.
WHAT LAW DID HE VIOLATE? IN THE PRE-DEPRIVATION NOTICE, IT DOES NOT CITE THAT HE WAS ARRESTED.
IT COULD NOT CITE HE WAS INDICTED BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED NEARLY THREE YEARS LATER.
THAT HAPPENED A MONTH AND A HALF AGO.
NOW, FOR SOME REASON, THIS IS WHY I WANT TO SAY THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE LAW.
WHY IN THE WORLD DOES SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TWO MONTHS AGO MAKE ITS WAY INTO THEIR MEMORANDUM OF LAW OPPOSING THIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, IF THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION HAS TO DO WITH THE NOTICE HE WAS GIVEN THREE YEARS AGO? MIGHT WANT TO ASK YOURSELF THAT.
CONTRAST THAT WITH, I HIGHLY DOUBT, ALTHOUGH CHIEF EMERITUS WILL REMEMBER THIS CASE.
RAY JACKSON, IT CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND ENDED UP MAKING ITS WAY UP TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
IT WAS A DE DABIT CASE WHERE HE TERMINATED SOME OFFICERS, AND THERE WAS AN INTERVENING INCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS A PRE-TERMINATION LETTER THAT THE COURT CITES.
BACK THEN IN, WHAT WAS IT? 2014, THEY WERE STILL CALLING IT A PRE-TERMINATION NOTICE.
THEY GET PUT ON ADMIN LEAVE, THEY GET SERVED WITH A PRE-TERMINATION NOTICE, AND THEN INTERVENING RIGHT AFTER THAT, THE OFFICERS INVOLVED GET INDICTED.
CHIEF DABIT SERVED A NEW PRE-TERMINATION NOTICE ON THEM, CITING THAT CLASS THREE VIOLATION, VIOLATION OF LAWS, AND NOTING THE FACT OF THEY WERE INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY, WHICH ACCUSED THEM OF VIOLATING SOME STATUTE.
QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER HEARD OF ABUSE OF OFFICE.
IT'S A CRIMINAL STATUTE FOUND IN TITLE 14.
BUT HERE, NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.
LET ME WRAP UP BY SAYING THIS. THE LAW IS CLEAR.
PRIOR TO THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO A LOUDER MAIL NOTICE.
I THINK NOBODY WILL CONTEST THAT.
[00:15:01]
SPECIFICALLY, THOUGH, THE CASE LAW SAYS THE NOTICE MUST CONTAIN THE PROPOSED ACTION.IT IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF DUE PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN.
BASICALLY, AND THE LAWYERS ON THE BOARD, I PICKED UP ON THIS THIS MORNING.
BASICALLY, WHAT THAT PRE-DIS NOTICE SHOULD BE IS WHAT LAWYERS WOULD CALL A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE.
THESE ARE WHAT THE FACTS ARE, THIS IS WHAT THE POLICY SAYS, OR WHAT THE LAW SAYS THAT YOU VIOLATED.
THIS IS WHAT MY SANCTION IS, WHERE THERE'S TERMINATION, SUSPENSION, DEMOTION, AND THEN IT SHOULD CONCLUDE WITH ON SUCH AND SUCH DATE, AT SUCH AND SUCH TIME, I INVITE YOU TO COME TO MY OFFICE AND SHOW CALLS WHY THESE FACTS ARE WRONG, OR MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHY THIS SANCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SANCTION IS, ACCORDING TO THAT LETTER, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE SANCTION WAS GOING TO BE. HOW WOULD THE EMPLOYEE? HOW CAN YOU SHOW UP TO SAY, LOOK, MAN, CHIEF, I'M SORRY.
I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU ON THE FACTS, BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO TO ME.
LET ME PRESENT SOME CHARACTER EVIDENCE.
I'VE NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE BEFORE.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE POINTING AUTHORITY WANTS TO DO TO YOU.
THE LOUDERMILL ITSELF TALKS ABOUT THIS WAY WHEN THE FACTS ARE CLEAR, MAYBE, AND THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM LOUDERMILL, MAYBE THE SANCTION IS NOT, AND THE EMPLOYEE CAN INVOKE THE DISCRETION OF THE DECISION MAKER.
WELL, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S THINKING WITH REGARDS TO THE SANCTION, HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? I WILL SAY THAT YOU CAN. RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THANK YOU.
>> JIM RAINS HERE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD, I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE DOING THESE CASES.
WE'VE DEBATED DUE PROCESS MANY TIMES.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE HEARD THE ARGUMENT.
THIS SPECIFIC ARGUMENT FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
BECAUSE MANY TIMES WE'VE ARGUED DUE PROCESS, NOBODY HAS EVER ARGUED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL OF THESE PREVIOUS NOTICES HAVE BEEN THE SAME WORDING FOR YEARS AND YEARS AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT YOU MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE POLICY.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE EVER RAISED THIS.
TO ME, THAT SHOULD BE A RED FLAG TO.
JULY 11TH, 2022, THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS CASE, ALLEGED THAT MR. HILL TOOK HER TO AN APARTMENT AND SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER WHILE ON DUTY.
SUBSEQUENTLY, HE WAS ARRESTED ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, OF 2022 FOR SECOND DEGREE KIDNAPPING, VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTE 14C AND 44.1.
HIS PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE, WHICH IS IN YOUR BINDER, WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 14TH OF 2022, THAT NOTIFIED HIM OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM, AND IT'S QUITE SUBSTANTIAL.
LET ME GRAB MINE. IF YOU TURN TO TAB TWO, THAT'S A COPY OF THAT PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE.
UNLIKE MOST OF THEM, THIS ONE IS 22 PAGES LONG.
IT IS VERY DETAILED AND VERY THOROUGH IN EXPLAINING ALL OF THE CONDUCT THAT MR. HILL ENGAGED IN, AND IT NOTICED HIM OF VIOLATIONS OF SIX DIFFERENT POLICIES OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 26TH OF 2022, HE HAD HIS PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND HE WAS TERMINATED FOR MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING TRUTHFULNESS VIOLATION OF LAWS, CARRYING OUT ORDERS, DIGITAL MOBILE VIDEO, CONDUCT UNBECOMING AND COMPLETION AND SUBMISSION OF FORMS.
[00:20:05]
OCTOBER OF 2022, HE FILES HIS APPEAL WITH THIS BOARD AND THEN ASKED THAT THIS CASE BE PUT ON HOLD WHILE HIS CRIMINAL CASE IS PENDING, AND AS MR. IVEY SAID IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, HE WAS INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY ON ONE COUNT OF SECONDARY KIDNAPPING AND ONE COUNT OF MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE.HE SUBSEQUENTLY FILED THIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
THE FIRST ARGUMENT THAT WE MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION IS THAT CIVIL SERVICE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO BRPD, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE BASED ON THE READING OF THEIR REPLY BRIEF, THEY AGREE WITH US.
IN GENERAL, THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES DO NOT APPLY.
THE CASES THAT THEY CITED TO THIS BOARD IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION FOR CASES INVOLVING EMPLOYEES OF DHH, DOTD, ORLEANS LEVY DISTRICT, LSU PUBLIC HOSPITAL, ALL OF THESE FALL WITHIN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, AND SO RULE 12.7 APPLIES TO THEM.
RULE 12.7 IS THE ONE THAT REQUIRES THAT THEY GET NOTIFICATION OF THE POSSIBLE DISCIPLINE THAT'S GOING TO BE RENDERED AGAINST THEM.
THE QUESTION TODAY FOR YOU, AND I THINK WE AGREE ON THIS IS WHAT DUE PROCESS IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYEE? I THINK WE AGREE. WHAT DOES DUE PROCESS MEAN? NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
THAT IS THE BASIS OF DUE PROCESS.
NOTIFICATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A DEFENSE TO THAT.
YOU WERE TOLD WHAT LOUDERMILL SAYS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
THE PROBLEM IS, YOU WERE TOLD WHAT IT MEANS, BUT YOU WEREN'T READ WHAT LOUDERMILL ACTUALLY SAYS.
I WANT TO GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THE CASES THAT ARE CITED BY THE OTHER SIDE.
I WANT TO READ IT TO YOU AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU'RE BEING TOLD IT SAYS.
THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM LOUDERMILL.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT REASONS, EITHER IN PERSON OR IN WRITING, WHY PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IS A FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE END OF THAT PARAGRAPH.
THE TENURED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO ORAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S EVIDENCE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.
NOTICE, EXPLANATION IN THE LETTER, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS DEFENSE.
TO REQUIRE MORE THAN THIS PRIOR TO TERMINATION WOULD INTRUDE TO AN UNWARRANTED EXTENT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN QUICKLY REMOVING AN UNSATISFACTORY EMPLOYEE.
LOUDERMILL ITSELF IS RESTRICTIVE IN SAYING, THESE ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
THE EMPLOYEE DOES GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE.
WHY SHOULD A PROPOSED ACTION NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST ME? THAT'S THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
YOU GET THE NOTICE, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE AT EXHIBIT 2, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT PRED DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
EVERYBODY THAT RECEIVES A PRE DISCIPLINARY NOTICE, THEN HAS A HEARING.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THEN THE DISCIPLINE IS RENDERED BY THE CHIEF.
THIS SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE LOUISIANA CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM REQUIRES.
I ALSO REPRESENT AGENCY IN THAT SYSTEM.
THEY FOLLOW RULE 12.7, AND THEY HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCESS THAN WHAT WE HAVE WITH BRPD.
THAT'S BECAUSE RULE 12.7 REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT RULE 12.7 BECAUSE THE LANG CASE IS WHAT CITED TO YOU AS SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT RULE 12.7.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT DOES LANG ACTUALLY SAY? IT'S A LITTLE BIT LONG, BUT I WANT TO JUST TRACK WITH ME HERE.
THIS IS JUST A QUOTE FROM THAT CASE.
AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF OLD, AND THAT'S THE ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT.
THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE DEALING WITH IN THAT CASE, AN EMPLOYEE OF THAT AGENCY.
PLAINTIFF WAS A PERMANENT CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE AND AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ATTAINED SUCH STATUS HAS A PROPERTY INTEREST IN KEEPING HIS JOB.
THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT BE TERMINATED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
AS A THRESHOLD MATTER, WE NOTE CIVIL SERVICE RULE 12.7 EMBODIES THIS PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD.
THIS COURT HERETOFORE, HAS NOT INTERPRETED RULE 12.7, BUT LOWER COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE RULE CODIFIES A PRINCIPLE ELUCIDATED AND LOUDERMILL I.E, DUE PROCESS ENTITLES AN EMPLOYEE THREATENED WITH TERMINATION TO NOTICE OF THE CHARGES LODGED AGAINST HIM AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL HIS SIDE OF THE STORY BEFORE THE TERMINATION.
[00:25:03]
RULE 12.7 CODIFIES THE LOUDERMILL DECISION AND WE ANALYZE THIS CASE ACCORDINGLY.THAT CITATION SAYS THAT RULE 12.7 MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOUDERMILL.
THEY ARE AFFIRMING THAT CIVIL SERVICE RULE 12.7 DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOUDERMILL.
THAT WAS AN ISSUE IN THAT CASE.
BUT WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY IS THAT RULE 12.7 IS THE ONLY WAY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOUDERMILL.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO THEN GO ON IN THE LANG CASE AND READ TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS TELLING US ABOUT THIS.
IN OUR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S RULING THAT OLD VIOLATED RULE 12.7, WE ARE MINDFUL THAT DUE PROCESS IS BY NATURE AN IMPRECISE IDEAL.
THE CONTOURS OF WHICH ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN.
THIS IS SO BECAUSE ITS REQUIREMENTS VARY ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCE.
DUE PROCESS ENCOMPASSES THE DIFFERING RULES OF FAIR PLAY, WHICH THROUGH THE YEARS HAVE BECOME ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS.
WE THEREFORE DO NOT ASPIRE TO FIX THE BOUNDARIES OF DUE PROCESS WHICH ARE INHERENTLY FLEXIBLE AND MUST REMAIN SO.
OUR DECISION TODAY SHOULD NOT BE READ OTHERWISE. THAT'S IMPORTANT.
IT'S SAYING, WE'RE NOT DICTATING A SPECIFIC PROCESS FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND HOW DUE PROCESS HAS TO BE ATTAINED.
IT'S GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT. HOWEVER, DUE PROCESS DOES NOT LACK FUNDAMENTAL IMPERATIVES, ONE OF WHICH IS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE CHARGES LODGED AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE REASONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
THEREFORE, THE CENTRAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF WAS AFFORDED AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE CHARGES.
AGAIN, THEY GO BACK TO THE SAME TWO THINGS OVER AND OVER, JUST LIKE LOUDERMILL, DID YOU HAVE NOTICE? DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND HERE? WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DUE PROCESS, IT IS MINIMAL DUE PROCESS.
THAT IS NOT WE HAVE TO EXCEED ALL THINGS, ALL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW.
IT'S A MINIMAL DUE PROCESS HERE, AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO, AND WE DID HERE IN THE HILL CASE.
AGAIN, TAB TWO OF YOUR BINDER, YOU CAN SEE IT.
IT'S VERY LENGTHY AND IT GOES THROUGH ALL OF THE PRECISE FACTS AND CHARGES THAT WERE BROUGHT AGAINST MR. HILL.
THEY TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE LETTER SAYS THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO SAY ANYTHING OR EVEN SHOW UP AT THE HEARING.
REMEMBER, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DUE PROCESS, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A DEFENSE.
IT IS YOUR RIGHT, AND WE'RE GIVING YOU THAT RIGHT AND HE WAS GIVEN THAT RIGHT HERE, AND HE DID.
BUT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PRESENT THAT DEFENSE.
THE LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT, IT JUST REQUIRES THAT WE PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE. THANK YOU.
NOW, ONE THING THAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT BRPD FROM A LOT OF THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT I WORK WITH THAT HAPPEN TO FALL WITHIN THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM IS THAT BRPD HAS A SPECIFIC DISCIPLINE POLICY.
YOU ALL IF YOU'VE BEEN IN HEARINGS WITH ME, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A HEARING, I GIVE YOU A COPY OF THAT POLICY. LET'S TURN TO EXHIBIT 4.
LAST PAGE. THERE'S GENERAL ORDER 112.
>> THE VERY LAST PAGE IN THE WHOLE BINDER. THAT MAKES IT EASIER.
SHOULD BE A GENERAL ORDER 112, PAGE 21? LET ME SEE.
>> LITTLE COPY ROOM PROBLEM THERE. YOU THERE, DR PRESS? GREAT.
NEXT MONTH, I'VE GOT A CIVIL SERVICE TERMINATION CASE.
WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT BRPD AS COMPARED TO OTHER AGENCIES, IS THERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC MATRIX THAT
[00:30:03]
EXPLAINS WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU HAVE A DISCIPLINARY CASE.IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE MULTIPLE CLASS THREE VIOLATIONS.
I THINK THERE WERE THREE, TWO TWOS, AND A ONE.
IF YOU GO TO A HEARING, YOU WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU.
IF WE LOOK AT A FIRST OFFENSE CLASS THREE, LET'S SAY THERE WAS ONLY ONE OF THEM.
I KNOW WALKING IN THERE, I'M GOING TO HAVE A ONE DAY SUSPENSION, AT LEAST, IF IT GETS SUSTAINED UP THROUGH A TERMINATION, POSSIBILITY.
IF I GET TWO IN ONE YEAR, I'M AT LEAST GOING TO GET A 45 DAY SUSPENSION UP THROUGH DISMISSAL.
NOW, THE CHIEF CAN GO OUTSIDE OF THAT, TYPICALLY, SOMETIMES THEY MIGHT GO UNDER IT.
BUT THIS IS GENERALLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH IS EVEN MORE SPECIFIC A LOT OF TIMES THAN WHAT YOU GET IN OTHER LETTERS.
THIRD OFFENSE IN FIVE YEARS, 30 DAY SUSPENSION UP THROUGH DISMISSAL, AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CHART, IT'S SELF EXPLANATORY.
TO SAY THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS NO IDEA OF WHAT THEY'RE WALKING INTO WHEN THEY GO INTO THEIR PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING IS JUST WRONG.
THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT ADOPTED A MATRIX SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE THIS CONFUSION FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHEN THEY WALK INTO THE PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
AGAIN, I THINK AS WE'VE LOOKED AT, LANG DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO GIVE THEM DISCIPLINE, TELL THEM WHAT THEIR DISCIPLINE IS GOING TO BE BEFORE WE WALK IN THE DOOR.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S REQUIRED IS NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, MR. HILL CERTAINLY GOT THAT IN THIS CASE.
HE HAD A VERY LENGTHY EXPLANATION OF IT.
AS WE SAID BEFORE, HE WAS ARRESTED ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, THERE WAS ONLY ONE CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR WHICH HE WAS ARRESTED.
WHEN HE RECEIVED A VIOLATION OF LAWS CHARGE, HE'S WELL AWARE THAT IT WAS RELATED TO HIS ARREST.
WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT THE PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
WE TALKED THROUGH THAT ISSUE AND HE WAS SUSTAINED ON IT.
I THINK WE CERTAINLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN THIS CASE, AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DENY THE MOTION AND ALLOW THIS CASE TO GO TO THE MERITS ON AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU.
>> IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY AND YOU GET AN OPPORTUNITY, READ THAT PRE-DIS AND THEN THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU JUST HEARD FROM THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY THAT ISN'T IN THAT PRE-DIS LETTER.
HEARD ABOUT INDICTMENTS, HEARD ABOUT AN ARREST.
I THINK YOU HEARD THE PHRASE SEXUAL ASSAULT.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY FOR THE FACTS.
I KNOW WHY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WANTS IT TO BE BECAUSE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ARE VERY SERIOUS.
TALK ABOUT APPOINTING AUTHORITY LET OFF WITH HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE WRITTEN THIS LETTER LIKE THAT, AND WE COME UP HERE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, AND NOBODY EVER ARGUES AGAINST THAT AND IT'S A RED FLAG.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, SOMEBODY WANTS TO RAISE THIS ISSUE.
I KNOW IN THE GOVERNMENT WORK I'VE DONE USUALLY THE LEAST LEGITIMATE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING SOMETHING IS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
I'M SURE THE FIREMEN AND POLICEMEN HAVE HEARD THAT BEFORE.
IF THAT'S THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT, IT CAN'T BE WRONG.
LOOK AT LOUDERMILL. NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE BEHIND THAT? IT'S TO INVOKE THE DISCRETION OF THE DECISION MAKER.
LOUDERMILL TALKS ABOUT, SOMETIMES, EMPLOYEE CAN'T ARGUE WITH THE FACTS.
IT'S MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT NOWADAYS, YOU GOT IN CAR DASH CAMS AND BODY CAMS. BUT MAYBE IT'S COOL.
CHIEF, I SEE YOU WANT TO FIRE ME.
YOU PUT THAT IN THIS LETTER AND LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT BACKING OFF THAT. I DID WHAT I DID.
CAN'T DO THAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW, IF YOU'VE NOT BEEN PUT ON NOTICE WHAT THE PROPOSED ACTION IS.
JUST THINK ABOUT THE COMMON SENSICAL IN TERMS OF YOU GET NOTICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ONE DAY, WE WANT TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM YOU.
BUT JUST SHOW UP THAT HEARING AND DURING THAT HEARING, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TIME TO PREPARE FOR IT, BUT SOME POINT IN THAT HEARING OR MAYBE IMMEDIATELY AFTER, WE'LL TELL YOU THE EXTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TAKEN FROM YOU.
I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES DUE PROCESS.
ATTEND, SUBMIT IT TO THE BOARD FOR DECISION. THANK YOU.
[00:35:02]
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I WAS ABOUT TO THINK OF IT.
>> I WANT TO SAY, IF YOU COULD BOTH JUST STAY NEARBY BECAUSE I CERTAINLY HAVE QUESTIONS, MR.
>> TO START OUT WITH BECAUSE LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED ABOUT, THERE'S TWO OVERARCHING ISSUES, AND MR. IVEY, FEEL FREE TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
MY FIRST QUESTION WILL BE FOR YOU.
>> SO LONG AS IT'S UNDERHANDED SLOW PITCH SOFTBALL?
>> ABSOLUTELY. I'LL SPEAK VERY SLOWLY.
>> I'LL DEFINITELY TRY TO KEEP THE TWO ISSUES SEPARATE.
ONE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN AS FAR AS THE POTENTIAL PENALTY, AND THEN YOUR OTHER ISSUE BEING WHETHER OR NOT PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUE OF LAWS, WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY.
>> TWO ISSUES. SPECIFICALLY ON THE NOTICE OF PENALTY.
MR. RAINES IS ARGUING ESSENTIALLY THAT OUR LEGISLATURE IS NOT OMNISCIENT OR OMNIPOTENT, AND THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CODIFY A CASE IN A PARTICULAR WAY, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT CODIFICATION REPLACES THAT CASE IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION CAN GIVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
WE HAVE A HEIGHTENED RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THAT WE DO NOT HAVE IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
COULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS MR. RAINES' STATEMENT AND POSITION THAT LOUDERMILL AND ITS PROGENY DON'T STAND FOR WHAT YOU SAY THAT THEY DO IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATION MAY.
>> LOUDERMILL MOST CERTAINLY DOES.
IT'S STRAIGHT ON POINT ABOUT TALKING ABOUT NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY NOTICE GAVE NO NOTICE OF A PROPOSED ACTION.
BECAUSE IF YOU READ IT, THOUGH THE CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS USED IN THERE, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HADN'T EVEN MADE UP HIS MIND.
BUT WHAT LANG DOES IS, AND ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S A STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RULE 12.7.
>> THAT PRECEDED THE LANG DECISION.
THAT IS OUR SUPREME COURT, AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT BECAUSE IN LANG, THE SUPREME COURT ALSO TALKS ABOUT, AND I BELIEVE I CITED IN MY MEMORANDUM OR MAYBE IT WAS IN MY REPLY THAT, THE SUPREME COURT, AND I KNOW WE FORGET IT, REMINDS THE READER, WE DO HAVE A STATE CONSTITUTION, IT HAS A DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, TOO.
IT SAID, LOOK, WE LOOK AT RULE 12.7, AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART AS THAT RULE CODIFIED A PRINCIPLE CONTAINED IN LOUDERMILL.
IF IT DOES, THEN THAT MAKES IT A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS ACCORDING TO OUR STATE SUPREME COURT. HOW DOES IT NOT?
>> COULD THEY NOT HAVE CODIFIED LOUDERMILL WHILE ALSO GOING BEYOND LOUDERMILL.
WOULD THAT STILL BE A QUALIFICATION?
>> THAT'S QUITE POSSIBLE. TO ME, IT'S READ IT IS GOING TO BE A LAWYER TERM AND I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT IT IN PARTY MATERIA.
TYPICALLY, I HAVE DONE A LOT OF CRIMINAL WORK.
THEY TRY TO READ THEM LIKE WORDS TO MEAN THE SAME THING BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
OUR STATE CONSTITUTION FREQUENTLY DOES GO.
IT CAN ONLY AFFORD MORE RIGHTS OR THE SAME RIGHTS? IT CAN'T AFFORD LESS BECAUSE THEN YOU RUN INTO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS. I AGREE WITH YOU. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> I BELIEVE SO. I'LL DEFINITELY LET MR. RAINES RESPOND TO THAT.
BUT IF ANYONE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE FOR MR. IVEY, I WOULD AND AGAIN, I NOTE THAT IN LANG, IN THE NOTICE THAT THEY WERE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CONTAINED THE PENALTY.
>> THAT ACTUALLY REMINDS ME, I DID HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
MR. RAINES IS ALSO ARGUING THAT BY CODIFYING THE POTENTIAL PENALTIES IN THE HANDBOOK OR WHATEVER THIS DOCUMENT IS THAT THAT IS IF THERE ARE CHARGES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENSES THAT ARE IN PARTICULAR CATEGORIES, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE NOTICE.
NOW IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MR. RAINES IS NECESSARILY CONCEDING THAT NOTICE OF PENALTY IS REQUIRED, BUT EVEN IF WE WERE TO DECIDE THAT IT WAS, I BELIEVE HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THAT WAS MET PURSUANT TO THAT HANDBOOK.
WOULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THAT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE A REFERENCE TO SOME POLICY CONTAINED OUTSIDE OF THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE PRE-DIS NOTICE, IT EMPLOYS ROUGHLY A ZERO TO TERMINATION RANGE.
[00:40:01]
EVEN AGAIN, YOU GET TO THE PERMEABLE LINES OF THE BOUNDARIES CONTAINED IN POLICY WITH REGARDS TO THE PENALTY RANGES, MR. RAINES HIMSELF CONCEDED SOMETIMES CHIEFS GO BELOW OR ABOVE IT.THESE AREN'T EXACTLY HARD AND FAST RULES OR HARD AND FAST BOUNDARIES, HE WANTS YOU MAYBE TO BELIEVE.
NO, AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO IF THE CHIEF HAS THAT LEVEL OF DISCRETION, EVEN WHEN IT COMES TO A RANGE THAT IS SO BROAD THAT HE CAN GO ABOVE OR BELOW IT, HOW IS THAT NOTICE OF A PROPOSED ACTION? I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT.
>> I WOULD CERTAINLY ASK MR. RAINES TO RESPOND BUT AGAIN, IF ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. IVEY ON THAT ISSUE.
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVING A QUESTION ALONG THOSE LINES.
IF NOT, WE'LL ASK MR. RAINES TO.
>> AGAIN, WE DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT LANG SAID AND WHAT LOUDERMILL SAYS, LOUDERMILL DOES NOT SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM A COPY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.
IT SAYS, WHY PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IS THE PHRASE.
IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A SPECIFIC DISCIPLINE, AND THEN HAVE, MEANING THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND IN GENERAL TO THE DISCIPLINE.
WHY SHOULD THEY NOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST ME? BECAUSE THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE RIGHT BEHIND THAT IS THEY CLARIFY THE TENURED EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO ORAL OR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, AN EXPLANATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S EVIDENCE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.
THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS THAT LOUDERMILL REQUIRE.
NOW RULE 12.7, WHICH IS A CIVIL SERVICE RULE, I THINK GOES BEYOND THAT, AND IT IS A DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT THAN WHAT MOST MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICER AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE REQUIRE.
THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO THAT.
THAT IS THE REASON THAT THE BRPD HAS NOT DONE THAT TRADITION.
AGAIN, THE DISCIPLINE IS NOT ZERO DETERMINATION.
EACH CATEGORY, EACH BOX THAT YOU LOOK IN TELLS YOU WHAT MAY HAPPEN.
NOW, YOU COULD HAVE CATEGORY THREE FIRST TIME.
IT'S A SCHWARTZ SUSPENSION ALL THE WAY TO DETERMINATION.
BUT IF YOU GET SUSTAINED, YOU'RE AT LEAST GOING TO BE SUSPENDED.
A, ALL OFFICERS ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR POLICIES.
TWO, THE POLICIES THAT WE CITE THEM FOR ARE ALL PART OF GENERAL ORDER 112.
ALL THE THINGS THE SIX VIOLATIONS THAT MR. HILL RECEIVED IN THIS CASE ARE ALL PART OF GENERAL ORDER 112.
I'LL HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR MR. IVEY ON THE SECOND ISSUE, BUT IF MR. RICKS, IT LOOKS LIKE HE HAS.
>> MR. IVEY, AND I'M JUST GOING TO SIMPLIFY IT A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS, FOR ME.
YOUR ARGUMENT IS ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION, CORRECT? ON 9/14, HE DID RECEIVE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION FOR A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING THAT THE POLICE CHIEF SAID, I MAY BE DISCIPLINING YOU, CORRECT? THAT WAS ON 9/14?
>> CORRECT. I THINK IT WAS SIGNED FOR IT THE DAY AFTER.
>> BUT IF IT WAS ISSUE 9/14, IT WAS SIGNED THE DAY AFTER.
>> BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS MADE IN THERE.
THE OTHER CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS WERE INDICATED THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAD NOT EVEN MADE UP HIS MIND WHETHER HE HAD VIOLATED POLICY.
THEN ON 9/26, THE NOTICE OF PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, WAS THAT GIVEN IN WRITING OR WAS THAT ORALLY GIVEN?
>> WAIT. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY.
THAT WAS THE HEARING ITSELF, I BELIEVE.
>> HE GOT THE NOTIFICATION ON 9/14.
>> THAT WAS THE NOTICE SHOW UP AT OUR OFFICE ON SEPTEMBER 26 AND PRESENT ANYTHING IF YOU WANT TO TO ME.
>> THAT WAS A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO HIM OR YOU AS HIS ATTORNEY, ON THE 26TH?
[00:45:03]
THE NOTIFICATION OF THE HEARING WAS ON 9/14 ALONG WITH, I BELIEVE IT'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR BOTH OF US.
>> THEN TO CLARIFY HE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION ON 9/30 OF 2022.
>> HONESTLY, THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT.
>> I KNOW. I'M JUST TRYING TO SIMPLIFY FOR MYSELF.
>> I WILL CONCEDE SOMETIME AFTER 9/26, A LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CLAIMING THAT HE WAS TERMINATING MR. HILL'S EMPLOYMENT.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS.
>> I DO, MR. CHAIR. ON THE THE SECOND ISSUE HAD A SECOND QUESTION.
>> SLOWER PITCH, THAT'S TOO MUCH OF A FASTBALL.
>> YOUR ISSUE REGARDING THE VAGUENESS OF THE CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF LAWS? IT CERTAINLY APPEARS AS THOUGH MR. RAINES' POSITION IS THAT AND I'M NOT INCLINED TO HIDE THE BALL, AT FACE VALUE, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN MY READING THAT IF, NOTICE OF THE CHARGES TO AN INDIVIDUAL IS REQUIRED.
I THINK EVERYONE AGREES THAT THEY ARE, THAT THOSE CHARGES ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE OFF THE POLICE ORDER, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DEMANDING THAT THEY DELINEATE WHAT THE CRIMINAL CHARGES MIGHT BE.
I BELIEVE THAT MR. RAINES' POSITION IS THAT BY DELINEATING THE CONDUCT, THAT THE CHIEF BELIEVED WAS A VIOLATION OF THE CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF LAWS, THAT IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH.
WOULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THAT IF I'M INTERPRETING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T DIRECTLY ON POINT.
AGAIN, IN THE CASE I CITED IN RAY JACKSON CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD MADE ITS WAY UP TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
THE CHIEF OF POLICE, AT THE TIME, DABADIE SAW FIT TO REISSUE A NEW PRE-TERMINATION NOTICE, CITING THE FACT OF THE GRAND JURY INDICTMENT, CITING WHAT THE LAW WAS THEY STOOD ACCUSED OF.
>> DID THE ORIGINAL NOTICE HAVE AND [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE ORIGINAL NOTICE DID NOT.
THEY ADDED THE COUNT OF VIOLATION OF LAWS TO A SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-TERMINATION NOTICE IN JACKSON.
>> BUT IN THAT FIRST LETTER WAS VIOLATION OF LAWS ALLEGED?
>> NO. THEY ADDED THE COUNT OF VIOLATION OF LAWS ACCORDING TO THE JACKSON CASE AS THE FACTS THAT WERE CITED BY THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
AGAIN, GOOD LORD, HOW MANY POTENTIAL CRIMINAL STATUTES BETWEEN CITY ORDINANCES, STATE LAWS, AND FEDERAL LAWS COULD THERE BE? THEY DON'T CITE THE FACT OR PUT ON NOTICE THAT AND LOOK THIS IS A FEW STROKES ON A KEYBOARD.
GOOD LORD. HOW HARD IS IT? ON SUCH DATE, YOU WERE ARRESTED BY AFFIDAVIT WARRANT.
THE OFFICERS OF THE BATON ROUGE POLICE.
I AGREE WITH THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THAT WARRANT.
THEREFORE, YOU VIOLATED THIS LAW, THIS LAW, HIS.
MR. RAINES TYPED IT UP IN IN HIS MEMORANDUM.
WHY DIDN'T IT SHOW UP IN THE PREVIOUS NOTICE, WHICH I THINK IS REQUIRED.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE DOING THIS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT GOD.
SOMETIMES SIMILAR CONDUCT COULD BE VIOLATIVE OF SEVERAL LAWS AND YOU JUST DON'T KNOW HOW HARD, THINK JUST THINK ABOUT.
IF MR. RAINES GOES, HOW HARD WOULD THAT BE TO DO? WOULDN'T BE.
>> CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE HARD, BUT THE QUESTION I THINK WE'RE DECIDING IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S REQUIRED.
A PREVIOUS CHIEF DOING SO IS CERTAINLY INFORMATIVE.
BUT ULTIMATELY, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MR. RAINES IS JUMPING AT THE BIT TO GET UP AND ADDRESS IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S REQUIRED.
THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT SEPARATELY.
>> LET'S GET BACK TO THE BASICS FOR JUST A SECOND.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF DUE PROCESS? IT IS TO GIVE AN INDIVIDUAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES SO THAT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A DEFENSE.
NOW, WE DID TALK ABOUT HE HAD JUST BEEN ARRESTED PRIOR TO THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE GOING OUT AND A FEW WEEKS BEFORE HE HAD HIS PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
>> WE NOTICE THEM OF THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THEM.
WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE THEM EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED IN THEIR CRIMINAL CASE.
[00:50:01]
NOW, WAS THEIR CRIMINAL CASE DISCUSSED? DID HE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT? THE ANSWER THERE IS, YES.IF YOU GO TO TAB 3, WHICH IS THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION NOTICE, PAGE 17.
>> THERE'S A PARAGRAPH ABOVE A FULL PARAGRAPH ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL POLICY.
THAT'S THE SECOND FULL PARAGRAPH ON THE PAGE, I'M GOING TO START.
IT STARTS WITH AT YOUR PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, WHICH TOOK PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2022.
YOU APPEARED WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, CLIFTON IVY.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF YOUR PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE.
YOUR ATTORNEY CONFIRMED THAT THE CRIMINAL CASE PENDING AGAINST YOU AT THE 19TH JDC IS ONGOING, AND DID NOT LET YOU TESTIFY AT THIS HEARING, AND THEN IT GOES ON.
THE CRIMINAL CASE, THEY WERE AWARE OF IT, WE TALKED ABOUT IT, IT WAS ADDRESSED.
HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, AND THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY DUE PROCESS.
WE COULDN'T NOTIFY HIM OF WHAT HAPPENED AS FAR AS THE INDICTMENT GOES, THAT HAPPENED, AS HE SAID, IN 2025.
THAT JUST HAPPENED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONDUCT, WE DETAILED.
THAT'S WHY WE PUT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.
IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REHASH THE FACTS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW YOU ALL OF THE FACTS THAT SOME OF WHICH RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL CASE, WE GAVE HIM ALL OF THE FACTS.
WHAT WAS HE ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE? TO KIDNAP THIS PERSON, TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT HER, TO FAIL TO DOCUMENT, TO FAIL TO FOLLOW THE GENERAL ORDERS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION OF PRISONERS, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY THAT HE HAD HER IN THE CAR.
HE TOLD HER TO DUCK DOWN WHILE HE'S DRIVING AROUND.
HE TRANSFERRED HER FROM A POLICE UNIT TO HIS PERSONAL UNIT.
WE PUT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IN THIS BECAUSE SOME OF THAT, YES, RELATES TO THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND WE WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND.
WE WEREN'T HIDING THE BALL WITH HIM AT ALL.
HE WAS FULLY AWARE OVER THE 21 OR 22 PAGES OF HIS NOTICE, WHAT HIS CONDUCT WAS.
AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE NOTICE IS TO ADVISE HIM OF WHAT THAT CONDUCT WAS, WHAT THE CHARGES ARE AGAINST HIM, AND TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
AGAIN, MINIMAL DUE PROCESS, AND I THINK IN CONTRAST, WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND IN THIS SITUATION.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE BOARD, QUESTION? BOARD MEMBERS, I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT, BUT WHAT'S YOUR WISH?
>> THAT COUNSEL, WOULD BECAUSE I CERTAINLY THINK THAT WE PROBABLY NEED SOME OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THIS, WOULD IT BE YOUR PREFERENCE FOR US TO TABLE IT FOR NOW, GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION LATER, HOPEFULLY RENDER A DECISION TODAY, OR WOULD YOU PREFER US HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AND THEN RESET IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING OR DO YOU HAVE ANY PREFERENCE EITHER WAY?
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT MONTH, AND IT'S GOING TO BE A SIMILAR ISSUE FOR ANOTHER EMPLOYEE.
I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO CUT ANYONE'S TIME SHORT, TO TRY TO MAKE A DECISION.
I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
I LEAVE IT UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU KNEW THIS IS YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THIS AGAIN VERY SOON.
>> THIS WAS PURELY ABOUT BEING RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE BOARD HAS ANY ISSUE MEETING AND RENDERING A DECISION TODAY.
THIS WAS JUST, WE ALSO HAVE OTHER MATTERS ON THE DOCKET THAT YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF, AND SO THIS WAS JUST TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME.
>> I'D SAY YOU'VE GOT OTHER ISSUES TO DEAL WITH THAT YOU MIGHT GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON, I GUESS.
>> PUT A TILL LATER, AND YOU CAN ADDRESS IT THEN.
>> THEN, MR. CHAIR, I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE THIS MATTER NOW PENDING EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. NEWVILLE THAT WE TABLE THIS MATTER UNTIL AFTER THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. I HAVE A SECOND.
>> OPPOSES NEY. HEARING NO NEYS.
WE'LL TAKE THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT. THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.
QUITE FRANKLY, IF THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WHICH I'M HOPING THERE WON'T BE,
[00:55:01]
I CAN WATCH THE VIDEO, AND MR. REYES CAN SEE HOW YOU RULE.I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO STAY, EVEN IF YOU DO RENDER A DECISION TODAY.
>> THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK OF THAT WOULD NEED YOUR APPEARANCE IS IF, AFTER PEOPLE CONSULTED WITH OUR ATTORNEY, THEY CAME BACK MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, WHICH I DON'T ANTICIPATE.
BUT IF YOU CAN BE ON CALL IN THE SAME WAY AS IF WE WERE WAITING FOR A JURY VERDICT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY SUFFICIENT.
BUT WHEN I MOVED TO THE TABLE, I WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE YOU GUYS NEEDING TO BE HERE.
WE WOULD SIMPLY EITHER YOU WOULD SEE IT ON THE VIDEO, BUT CERTAINLY, IF ONE OF YOU WERE HERE AND THE OTHER WASN'T, WE WOULD NOT BE ASKING FOR YOU GUYS TO ADDRESS US BEYOND THAT POINT.
>> WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME ANY OF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
IF IT DOES HAPPEN THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS, I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY JUST RESET IT.
>> HOLD IT OVER. WELL, THAT LEADS ME TO ANOTHER QUESTION.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HE AND I ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START PREPARING FOR NEXT MONTH.
I BELIEVE IT IS SET BOTH FOR A SUMMARY DISPOSITION MOTION.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE EXACT SAME THING TODAY, AS WELL AS A HEARING ON THE MERITS.
IS THERE ANY REASON BECAUSE IF YOU RULE AGAINST ME, MR. HILL HAS NO REASON NOT TO APPEAL.
HE'S LOST EVERYTHING, HE'S BEEN TERMINATED.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, I MEAN, IF I WAS REPRESENTING THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, I'M GOING TO APPEAL THAT ONE TOO, IF YOU RULE IN OUR FAVOR.
WE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAVE A FINAL DECISION, WHICH MAY ON THIS CASE, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT FORECLOSE HAVING A FULL HEARING ON ANOTHER EMPLOYEE MATTER.
IS THERE ANY REASON TO LEAVE THAT ON THE DOCKET FOR SEPTEMBER, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT JANNEL TAYLOR?
>> I WOULD PROCEED AS IF IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT MONTH.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
THIS IS A BREAK GLASS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY.
>> MR. DABADIE, I BELIEVE WHAT HE'S SAYING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT NO MATTER WHAT OUR DECISION IS TODAY, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE A PENDING APPEAL, AND WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.
MR. REYES, DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINION ON THAT OR A REFERENCE?
>> I'M NOT SURE ON A MAP, MR. REYES.
>> YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT ON THE MICROPHONE.
>> I SAID I DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WAS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ALREADY FILED IN THAT CASE.
CERTAINLY NOT ON THIS POINT BECAUSE THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS POINT.
I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION OR WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.
WELL, IT HADN'T BEEN FILED IN THAT CASE BECAUSE THAT'S NEWS TO ME.
>> THEN I SUGGEST, MR. CHAIR, THAT WE JUST MAINTAIN IT AS IS, AND WE'LL ADDRESS IT IF WE NEED TO.
BUT THAT'S NOT ON THE DOCKET TODAY, OR THE AGENDA TODAY, RATHER, I DON'T BELIEVE.
BUT I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO COME TO A DECISION TODAY.
THIS WAS SIMPLY MY TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF YOU GUYS TIME.
I'VE BEEN THE ONE SITTING IN COURT FOR EIGHTY HOURS, SO I WANTED TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THAT AS MUCH AS WE COULD.
>> WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO HAVE YOU GUYS AROUND AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'LL TRY NOT TO.
>> WE'LL MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 5.
[Additional Item]
THAT IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COMBINATION OF THE EMS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.ACTUALLY, CHANGING THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF THE FIRE CHIEF.
>> RIGHT. I WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD IS DOING TODAY BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT.
WHAT THE BOARD IS DOING TODAY IS SIMPLY CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO US TO THE JOB SPECIFICATION OF THE FIRE CHIEF.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, AND WHOEVER ELSE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY ON THE ISSUE.
THEN WE'LL DELIBERATE AND WE'LL MAKE A DECISION.
I DO NEED TO INFORM THE BOARD THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THAT WAS FILED AGAINST THE BOARD TO PREVENT THE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE ON THIS TOPIC.
WE WERE IN COURT THIS MORNING, AND THE JUDGE DISSOLVED THAT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, SO WE ARE IN THE CLEAR TO PROCEED AND TO HOLD THIS HEARING.
>> WITH THAT, THEN I WILL DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, AND WE'LL START RECEIVING COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE OF THE PRESENTATION.
[01:00:05]
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MARK OLSON.
I'M REPRESENTING THE COALITION FOR EBREMS, AND I'M HERE BEFORE THE BOARD TO ASK THEM TO EITHER VOTE NO OR TO PERMANENTLY DEFER THIS AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE JOB SPECS FOR THE FIRE CHIEF.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE TERMINOLOGY THAT IS BEING USED IN IT VIOLATES THE PARISH PLAN OF GOVERNMENT.
IT'S VERY SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS THE DEPARTMENT OF EMS, AND WITHIN THE JOB SPECS, IT WILL BE GOING TO THE EMS DIVISION.
THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE LEGISLATION OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO DO TO CHANGE THE PLAN OF GOVERNMENT.
ALSO, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH EMS IS AN ENTITY THAT FALLS UNDER TITLE 12, TITLE 10, AND THIS BOARD IS THEN LOOKING AT TAKING AND MERGING A PARISH-WIDE AGENCY WITH A CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHICH IS UNDER TITLE 5.
YOU'RE TAKING A TITLE 10 ENTITY, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S TO GO AHEAD AND BE PART OF A TITLE 5, AND I THINK THAT IS WRONG.
WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER AT LEAST POSTPONING THIS FOR A WHILE.
>> BUT BUT RECALL THAT THIS BOARD IS NOT THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE MAKING THAT DECISION.
WE'RE SIMPLY CONSIDERING WHETHER TO CHANGE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRE CHIEF.
>> TRUE, BUT THE QUALIFICATIONS THEN GO AND ALLOW THE FIRE CHIEF TO START BEING OVER THE DEPARTMENT, AND IT'S NOT THE DEPARTMENT ANYMORE, IT'S GOING TO BE THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION, WHICH AGAIN, CHANGES THE TITLE OF THE PLAN OF GOVERNMENT OF WHAT THIS IS.
YOU'RE JUST CHANGING THE NAME OF IT, AND THAT IS BEGINNING HERE IN THE BOARD.
>> BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE A DECISION OF A BODY OUTSIDE OF THIS ONE.
>> CORRECT, THAT'S WHY [OVERLAPPING] WHAT'S THAT, SIR?
>> WE'RE NOT EVEN DEALING WITH THAT QUESTION.
WE'RE SIMPLY CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF FIRE CHIEF.
>> YES, SIR. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THE FIRE CHIEF DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY, BASICALLY UNDER TITLE 5 TO MANAGE ANYTHING.
IT'S A PARISH-WIDE AGENCY TO MANAGE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS.
YOU'RE GRANTING HIM THAT PERMISSION THROUGH HIS JOB SPECS?
>> SOME OF THE COMMENTS DID REMIND ME.
WE DO HAVE THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER, PRESENT IN THE BUILDING.
THE HONORABLE ADRIAN BORDELON IS IN THE BUILDING.
I THINK PROBABLY WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS HEAR FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRST, OR RATHER THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, AS TO WHAT EXACTLY THEY'RE ASKING OR PROPOSING, AND THEN GO FROM THERE.
THAT WAY, EVERYBODY'S CLEAR ABOUT THAT PART OF THING.
>> GOOD MORNING, LON VIGENER FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
>> WHAT CHANGES DO YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE FIRE CHIEF?
>> JUST AS WRITTEN, SO WE'RE ASKING IT TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE CHIEF'S RESPONSIBILITY, POTENTIALLY EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE CHIEF'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE THE EMS DIVISION UNDER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
>> DOES THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED IDENTIFY WHAT EMS GROUP IS GOING, WHERE, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY, BUT I MEAN, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
THIS IS ONE STEP IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS TO BEGIN GOING DOWN THE PATH IF WE SO CHOOSE OR DECIDE TO CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE MOVING, POTENTIALLY THE EMS DEPARTMENT UNDER THE FIRE CHIEF.
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT WHAT THE BOARD WOULD BE DOING IF THEY VOTED FOR THIS IS REALLY PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY IN THE EVENT YOU GUYS WANT TO DO THIS?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS THE FLEXIBILITY TO CONTINUE TO MOVE BECAUSE THERE'S STILL MORE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO.
THIS IS, IN THE FIRST STEP, TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN ROLL FORWARD, SO THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THE STUDIES AND THE INVESTIGATION THAT WE'RE DOING INTO MAKING THIS PROCESS HAPPEN.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF HOW TO FRAME THIS INITIAL QUESTION.
CERTAINLY, WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE CHIEF'S JOB DESCRIPTION TO ALLOW
[01:05:02]
HIM TO HIRE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF EMPLOYEE THAN TRADITIONALLY WHAT HE HAS BEEN EMPLOYING.IS THERE A REASON WHY WE DON'T ALSO HAVE THOSE CHANGES IN CLASSIFICATION? IF HE HIRED INDIVIDUALS WORKING IN THE EMS CAPACITY OR WAS REQUIRING HIS FIREFIGHTERS TO WORK IN AN EMS CAPACITY, WOULD THERE BE OTHER CHANGES TO THOSE JOB DESCRIPTIONS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO REVIEW AS WELL?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS YES, AS WE WERE TO GET DOWN THAT PATH.
IF THAT'S A PATH WE WERE TO GO TO, THERE WOULD BE A RECLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES, IF WE WERE TO SAY, MOVE FROM WHERE EMS STANDS TODAY INTO UNDERNEATH A FIRE THAT EACH POSITION WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE AND ACCEPTED, AND THEN EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED OVER, IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, AND WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
>> WELL, AND THAT'S THE CORE OF MY QUESTION.
WHAT IF WE ACCEPTED THIS PROPOSAL?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING AND LET'S SAY THE METRO COUNCIL WOULD DO WHATEVER THE METRO COUNCIL NEEDS TO DO.
I'M ASSUMING THAT FOR NOW JUST FOR THE SAKE OF EASE.
COULD THE FIRE CHIEF IN THAT SITUATION HIRE ANYONE? MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE NO BECAUSE WE WOULD STILL HE COULDN'T HIRE ANYONE UNTIL HE HAD THOSE JOB DESCRIPTIONS?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. BE WE DON'T HAVE THE JOB DESCRIPTION.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S. I'M KIND OF TORN IN BOTH DIRECTIONS BECAUSE MR. DARRE KNOWS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I STARTED STRUGGLING WITH AT OUR LAST MEETING AND I WENT BACK TO LOOK AT WHAT THE DUTIES OF THIS BOARD IS AND MOST OF WHAT WE DO IS THE HEARING THAT YOU JUST SAW BEFORE.
BUT THE FIRST DUTY IS, AND IT'S I'M READING FROM REVISED STATUTE, 33 COLON 2477, NUMBER 1 IS REPRESENT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MATTERS OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND THE FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES OF THE SAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
THAT CUTS BOTH WAYS IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
BEFORE I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO ASK THE CHAIR, IF I COULD ASK ANYONE WHO WAS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF EMS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, THAT THEY DIRECTLY ADDRESS ALONG WITH ANYTHING ELSE THEY WANTED TO DISCUSS, THAT THEY DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHAT NEGATIVE IMPACT, IF ANY, THEY BELIEVED THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY.
BECAUSE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WE'RE NOT THE BOARD WHO REPRESENTS THE INTEREST IN PUBLIC MATTERS PERTAINING TO EMS AND SO THAT CUTS THAT WAY.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD, AND THERE MAY BE OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD WHO VERY MUCH ARE INTERESTED IN THOSE ISSUES.
BUT AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, IF IT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THEN I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT THAT'S WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS BOARD AND SO THAT CUTS ONE WAY.
BUT IT ALSO CUTS THE OTHER WAY OF THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OR THE MAYOR'S ADMINISTRATION IS ASKING US TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF THE CHIEF WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONSIDER WHAT OTHER JOB DESCRIPTIONS MAY GO INTO THAT OR WHAT ISSUES WE MAY SEE, AND IT LEAVES A BIT OF AN INCOMPLETE PICTURE IN MY MIND.
IT'S HARD FOR ME AS A BOARD MEMBER TO SAY THAT I'M REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
TO PASS A PROPOSED JOB DESCRIPTION OF JUST THE CHIEF, BUT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE ANYTHING UNLESS IT DOES, AND THAT'S TYING ME UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> SURE. TO ADDRESS THAT PORTION OF IT RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR AT THIS MOMENT IS FOR THE CHIEF, AND WE DO UNDERSTAND WITH THAT BEING DONE, IT REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE UNDERNEATH THE POSITION OF THE CHIEF AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE OUR COMMITMENT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROCESS WOULD BE THOROUGH FROM TOP TO BOTTOM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING INADVERTENTLY TO CAUSE SERVICES FOR THE CITY PARISH OR THE EMS EMPLOYEES TO GO TO BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS IN THE SLOW METHODICAL PROCESS.
YES, WE CAN EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE FIRE CHIEF.
THEN WE LOOK AT WHAT POSITIONS WOULD WE NEED UNDERNEATH THAT AND BUILD THAT AS WE GO.
THAT WOULD BE ASKED IN THE FUTURE IN THE PROCESS OF A POTENTIAL.
I DON'T KNOW WE'RE USING THE WORD MERGER, BUT AS A POTENTIAL GROWTH OF EMS UNDERNEATH THE FIRE.
>> BUT I GUESS THAT MY QUESTION IS, AND THIS COULD JUST BE MY IGNORANCE SPEAKING.
WHY IS THIS THE FIRST DOMINO? WHY DOES THIS NEED TO BE DONE BEFORE ALL OF THESE STUDIES, DETERMINATIONS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE HAPPEN SEPARATE AND APART FROM WHAT THE OTHER DOMINOES.
[01:10:07]
>> THIS ONE IS IF THE CHIEF WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FUNCTION IN THAT CAPACITY, THEN NOTHING ELSE WOULD MATTER.
IT IS ESSENTIALLY OUR TAKE ON IT.
IT'S SAYING THAT, YES, IS THIS IN FACT CAN BE DONE, SO THEN WE CAN LOOK AT IT UNDERNEATH THAT.
IF WE WERE TO GO THE OTHER WAY CONVERSELY AND DO SPEND THE TIME AND DILIGENCE ON ALL AND WE'VE LOOKED AT NOT TO SAY WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY, BUT TO CONTINUE TO TAKE THAT TO FRUITION, JUST TO FIND OUT AT THE VERY LAST END THAT WELL, THE CHIEF, THE IDENTIFIED PERSON THAT WE WOULD PUT IN CHARGE OF THIS COULDN'T FUNCTION IN THAT CAPACITY, THEN THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT FOR NOT.
BECAUSE I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THE CAPACITY OF THAT IF HE CAN'T, BUT FRANKLY, I WOULD ARGUE THAT A CAN'T IS A QUESTION THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS BOARD.
IF THE LITIGANTS THAT ARE CORRECT, THEN YOU CAN'T FOR REASONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT?
>> I WOULD IN MY INTERPRETATION, AND I WOULD ASK MR. DARRE TO CORRECT ME, THE CAN'T SEEMS TO BE OUTSIDE OF OUR HANDS.
THE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT APPEARS TO BE MORE FIRMLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD, AND THAT'S AND THAT'S WHY I'M STRUGGLING.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT FROM THE MOMENT IT HIT OUR AGENDA, I'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH ON, BOTH FROM A PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS A NUTS AND BOLTS PERSPECTIVE AND A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT AGAIN, ME PERSONALLY, WHERE I CAME TO WAS I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE GOOD, BAD, UGLY FOR EMS UNTIL MR. DARRE TELLS ME OTHERWISE, I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF OUR SCOPE.
BUT, WHAT'S GOOD OR BAD FOR FIRE FOR POLICE, BUT NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
BUT WHAT'S GOOD OR FOR FIRE VERY MUCH IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW AND ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, AS A BOARD MEMBER, I AM STRUGGLING WITH BEING ABLE TO CONCEIVABLY COME TO A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW THE CHIEF TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS OTHERWISE A BIT OF A BLACK HOLE.
I'LL GIVE EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT I WOULD PERSONALLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT.
YOU HAVE FIREFIGHTERS WHO ARE HIRED TO BE FIREFIGHTERS.
IF THE CHIEF MAKES PART OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION THAT THEY HAVE TO BE MEMBERS OF EMS. WILL THAT HURT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? IF THERE ARE CAPS IN SENIORITY OR THAT TYPE OF THING, WILL THAT CREATE ANIMOSITY WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ETC.
WE COULD SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY, BUT THOSE ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF CONCERNS THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GET MY HEAD AROUND JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF, IS IT GOOD FOR FIRE TO ALLOW THE FIRE CHIEF TO DO THIS WITHOUT ALL OF THOSE ANCILLARIES.
THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH PERSONALLY.
>> I DO NEED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THE CAN OR LET'S START WITH THE GENERAL PREMISE THAT AN EMPLOYEE IN OUR SYSTEM CANNOT BE ASKED TO DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THEIR CLASS SPECIFICATION.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE MESS AND TINKER WITH THOSE CLASSIFICATIONS.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY SAID THAT A MUNICIPALITY CAN CREATE AN EMS DEPARTMENT UNDER ITS FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THE CLASS PLAN THAT WE HAVE DOES NOT MATCH THE STATUTES.
REAL REASON WHY THEY CAN'T AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS BECAUSE OUR CLASS PLAN DOESN'T MATCH THE STATUTE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT I APPRECIATED THE GENTLEMAN TO BE SAYING IS THAT IT WOULD SEEM A LITTLE STRANGE TO GO DOWN THE PATH OF DOING ALL THIS RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS JUST TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD AND WE VOTED DOWN BECAUSE FRANKLY, THEY STILL CAN'T DO ANYTHING SO THAT WOULD BE DON OF A WASTE OF RESOURCES.
MY APPRECIATION OF IT AND MISS BORDELON IS HERE TO SPEAK TO IT IS THAT IT WASN'T ACTUALLY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY THOUGHT PROCESS TO START HERE.
THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STATE EXAMINER BECAUSE, AGAIN, WHAT I JUST SAID, THEY CAN DO ALL THE WORK THAT THEY WANT.
AS LONG AS IF WE DON'T VOTE FOR IT, THEY CAN'T IMPLEMENT ANY OF THAT STUFF.
I THINK THAT'S WHY WE WERE STEP ONE.
NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE BOARD IS TAKING A SIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH AND DO ALL THAT RESEARCH.
I THINK ALL WE'RE DOING IS SAYING, LOOK,
[01:15:03]
YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE DIFFERENT DUTIES, HERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT YOU COULD BE ASKED TO DO IN WHATEVER FORM OR FASHION.THAT'S REALLY THE PLAYING FIELD THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYBODY? SHOULD THEY DO IT IS REALLY FOR THEM.
WE'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, WE NEED TO EXPAND A CLASS SPEC TO MATCH A STATUTE, AND THEN THEY DO WHAT THEY DO WITH IT.
>> IS THERE ANY NEED DO YOU HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS BOARD IS AN BOARD AND EMS IS A PARISH WIDE ENTITY? DOES THAT ENTER INTO OUR CONSIDERATION AT ALL?
>> I'M ASKING EITHER OF YOU OR MR. DARRE.
>> WITH IT BEING A PARISH WIDE ENTITY IN OUR ANALYSIS RIGHT NOW, THERE IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE A MOVE IN THAT SCENARIO.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OUTSIDE OF THE BOARD FOR THAT, BUT REALLY OUR ASK IS REALLY TO LOOK AT IT IN THE SCOPE OF THIS BOARD'S CAPACITY, TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE YOUR AUTHORITY THAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE TO KEEP IT UNDER THAT.
>> THE WAY I WOULD ANSWER IT IS THE PARISH CITY RELATIONSHIP REALLY ISN'T REST TO DEBATE.
THAT'S HOW THEY GO ABOUT AFFECTING THE STATUTE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE AN EMS DEPARTMENT UNDER THE STATUTE.
OUR JOB IS JUST TO MAKE THEM IN LINE WITH THE STATUTE THAT SAYS, HEY, YOU CAN DO THIS.
NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THEY DECIDE TO CREATE A SEPARATE, NEW WHATEVER, OR THEY DECIDE TO REORGANIZE, THAT AIN'T OUR PROBLEM.
THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM, AND THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
THEY GOT PLENTY OF LAWYERS FOR THAT.
BUT AS FAR AS US, OUR JOB IS JUST TO SAY, LOOK, THERE IS A STATUTE THAT SAYS, HEY, YOU GUYS COULD DO THIS, THEY'RE THE MUNICIPALITY, NOT A [INAUDIBLE] WE'LL JUST FALL IN LINE WITH THAT STATUTE.
NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU GUYS CAN'T SAY NO.
I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE ARENA THAT YOU'RE PLAYING.
>> MR. CHAIR, I THINK THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE NEEDLING YOU.
MY CORE QUESTION OF WHY THIS FIRST MIGHT BE BETTER DIRECTED TO THE STATE EXAMINER, THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT'S HERE.
THIS ISN'T ME CUTTING ANYONE ELSE OR TELLING YOU TO SIT DOWN.
I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW WHY I'M CUTTING THAT LOOSE FOR NOW, AND I'LL PROBABLY I'LL FOR THAT.
>> MISS BARTON, WOULD YOU COME IN? TALK US THROUGH PLEASE.
>> GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS.
ADRIAN BORDELON, STATE EXAMINER FROM MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
AS MR. DARRE SO APTLY PUT IT, IT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE MUNICIPALITY THAT THEY DO START WITH THE GLASS PLAN OF THE FIRE CHIEF BECAUSE UNDER 303-20-4801.1, THE MUNICIPALITY MAY CREATE A DIVISION OF EMS WITHIN THEIR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIVISION OF EMS IN YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, APPLY THE FIRE CHIEF NEEDS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY OVER THE EMS DIVISION.
WITHOUT THIS BOARD CHANGING THE CLASSIFICATION PLANS TO SAY WHAT THE JOB DUTIES ARE.
THAT'S WHAT THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN IS.
IT'S THE JOB DUTY OF THE FIRE CHIEF TO INCLUDE DUTIES RELATED TO AN EMS DIVISION, THEN THE CHIEF WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE DUTIES AND THEN THEREFORE MOVING EMS OR CREATING AN EMS DIVISION WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BECOMES A LITTLE MORE PROBLEMATIC.
>> BUT ISN'T AREN'T WE IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE? IF WE PASS THIS PROPOSAL TODAY, THEY GO THROUGH ALL STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN.
A SEPARATE PROPOSAL IS MADE TO CLASSIFY ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES, AND WE SAY NO.
AREN'T WE IN THE EXACT SAME SITUATION THAT WE FIND OURSELVES.
>> UNDER UNDER THE LAW, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, THE CHIEF OR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CAN HIRE SOMEONE IN A PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT.
USUALLY, THEY CAN LAST UP TO 18 MONTHS IN ORDER FOR THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS BOARD TO DO A JOB STUDY AND WE WOULD CONSTRUCT AND PERFORM A JOB STUDY ON
[01:20:08]
ANY PARTICULAR CLASS THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WAS TELL US THAT THEY WANT US TO LOOK AT THAT THEY BELIEVE SHOULD FIT INTO THE MUNICIPAL FIRE CIVIL SERVICE OR THE CITY OF AVERAGE.AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT JOB STUDY, AND WE DO A VERY IN DEPTH DETAILED JOB STUDY, WE WILL WRITE A CLASS PLAN.
WE WILL SEND IT TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND ASK HIM, IS THIS SUFFICIENT? IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT? IS THIS WHAT THIS POSITION IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING? WHAT ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT YOU WANT IN THIS CLASS PLAN? UPON THE COMPLETION OF THAT, WE'RE GOING TO FORWARD THAT TO THIS BOARD FOR ALL TO POST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT IF WE SEND YOU A LETTER SAYING THAT THIS IS A CLASS THAT SHOULD BE ADOPTED INTO YOUR CIVIL SERVICE CLASS PLANS, THEN WE'VE DONE THE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THAT IT MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE WITHIN THE FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
I CAN ALSO PROMISE YOU THAT I DO SEND LETTERS TO BOARDS THAT SAYS, SORRY, THIS POSITION DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE AS OUTLINED BY THE STATUTES AND IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS POSITION, BUT IT DOES PROHIBIT IT FROM COMING INTO THE FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
>> UNDERSTOOD AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I NOW UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE SEARCHING FOR THIS AS A FIRST STEP.
I'M STILL GOING TO AND I'M SURE WE'LL DISCUSS AT LENGTH.
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING REGARDING THAT YOU WOULD MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE PLAN MET THE DEFINITION AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
>> THAT THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY THE EMPLOYEES MEET THE STATUS TO BE IN THE FIRE IN THE POLICE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
>> COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT.
THIS IS NOT ME CONTRADICTING OR FIGHTING YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT THAT ADDRESSES THAT REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN THAT I HAVE.
THAT'S HOW YOU SAYING EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID IS NOT HELPFUL TO ME BECAUSE I FUNDAMENTALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE COMING TO US AND ASKING FOR THIS ONE THING WHEN THEY COULDN'T ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING BEYOND THAT POINT.
WHEN THEY WERE SAYING STUDIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I THOUGHT THEY MEANT IT IN A MORE GENERAL SENSE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S A BIT OF A TERM OF ART.
>> THAT DIRECTLY IMPLICATES CIVIL SERVICE AND THE STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE, SO THAT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE TO ME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE IT.
>> ARE THERE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM OTHER MEMBERS.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER AGENCIES WITH EMS?
>> YES. ST. GEORGE HAS AN EMS DIVISION.
>> YES. ST. GEORGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ST. GEORGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT IS NOT PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY BECAUSE THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO THE MUNICIPALITY BEING CREATED.
THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT IN THE MUNICIPAL FOREIGN POLICE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, BUT THE ST. GEORGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT IS, WHICH I BELIEVE IT SHOULD HAVE AN EAST BATON RIDGE PARISH NUMBER.
APOLOGIZE. BUT THEY HAVE AN EMS, AND THEN BUCHAN HAS AN EMS DIVISION AND I BELIEVE AND DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION HERE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I WANT TO SAY SHREVEPORT HAS AN EMS DIVISION AS WELL.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROVISIONAL PERIOD.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN PRACTICALLY FOR THE EMS EMPLOYEES? LIKE DOES ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR JOB CHANGE IN THAT PROVISIONAL?
>> WHAT HAPPENS ON A PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT, IT IS UP TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO APPOINT SOMEONE THEY BELIEVE IS QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB, AND THEN WE DO THE ANALYSIS.
WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE ASSUMING THE ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THESE POSITIONS SHOULD FALL WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL FOREIGN POLICE CIVIL SERVICE.
WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR EACH POTENTIAL LEVEL.
FOR CREATING A DIVISION, WE'RE ASSUMING THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ENTRY LEVEL ALL THE WAY TO A DIVISION CHIEF OVER EMS. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY
[01:25:04]
TO MAKE SURE WHAT EVERY SINGLE CLASS IS, WHAT THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR THAT CLASS IS, AND MINIMUM QUALIFICATION IS DETERMINED FOR SITTING FOR THE EXAM.THEN AT EVERY LEVEL, THE BOARD WILL ADOPT THE CLASS, AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING, ANY CHANGES CAN BE MADE IN THE CLASS PLAN AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PLEASE DON'T THINK THAT TODAY, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE CLASS PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED BY THE OSC THAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE YOU, THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP Y'ALL FROM DOING THAT TODAY.
YOU CAN ADOPT THE CLASS PLANS WITH AMENDMENTS IF YOU BELIEVE MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CLASS PLAN MAY HELP YOU MOVING FORWARD.
BUT AGAIN, REMEMBER, THE OSC HAS WORKED EXTENSIVELY DOING JOB ANALYSIS AND WE ARE EXPERTS AT THIS AND SO WE USUALLY SEND A VERY COMPREHENSIVE JOB DESCRIPTION, SO THAT'S ALL.
WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN PROVISIONALLY, THEY'RE IN A TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT.
THEY ARE NOT GAINING SENIORITY.
THEY ONLY HAVE TO TEST, AND THEY START GAINING SENIORITY AFTER THIS BOARD WOULD ADOPT THE CLASS, SO LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
LET'S SAY YOU WANT TO CREATE THE CLASS OF EMS PARAMEDIC, SO THE CHIEF HIRES SOMEBODY, HE SAYS, OKAY, I AM FUNDING AND HIRING SOMEBODY IN THE CLASS OF EMS PARAMEDIC.
HE THEN COMES TO THE BOARD AND HE TELLS THE BOARD, I HAVE PLACED SOMEONE IN THIS CLASS.
ONCE HE DOES THAT, THAT SHOULD TRIGGER A JOB STUDY WITH THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER.
THEN YOU'LL NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER THAT A JOB STUDY NEEDS TO BE MADE BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW CLASS THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY WITHIN THE ADOPTED CLASS PLAN OF THE BATON ROUGE FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
WE WOULD CONDUCT THAT CLASS JOB STUDY.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE JOB STUDY, WE WOULD WRITE THE CLASS PLAN.
WE WOULD SEND IT TO THE CHIEF OR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, MAKING SURE IT CONTAINS EVERYTHING THAT THE DEPARTMENT WANTS.
THEN WE WOULD SEND IT TO Y'ALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
Y'ALL WOULD POST IT FOR 30 DAYS, AND THEN CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU CAN EITHER ADOPT IT, AS WRITTEN, YOU CAN ADOPT IT WITH AMENDMENTS, YOU CAN REJECT IT.
BUT FOR THE SAKE OF MY, LET'S ASSUME YOU ADOPT IT AS WRITTEN.
UPON ADOPTING THE CLASS, YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR THE EXAM, SO THAT YOU'RE GOING TO POST TO CALL FOR THE EXAM FOR THE CLASS.
ANYBODY WHO MEETS THOSE QUALIFICATIONS WOULD APPLY WITH YOU TO SIT FOR THE EXAM.
ON THE CLOSURE OF CALLING FOR THE EXAMS, YOU WOULD SEND MY OFFICE THE ROLL CALL, AND WE WOULD ADMINISTER THE EXAM.
UPON COMPLETION OF ADMINISTERING THE EXAM, WE'RE GOING TO SEND YOU THE GRADES.
I'M GOING TO CERTIFY THE GRADES TO YOU SAYING THESE ARE THE GRADES OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.
YOU'RE GOING TO ACCEPT THE GRADES, AND THAT'S GOING TO CREATE YOUR ELIGIBILITY LIST.
UPON ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ELIGIBILITY LIST, THE CHIEF OR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WILL BE ABLE TO HIRE SOMEONE INTO A PROBATIONARY APPOINTMENT IN THE NEWLY ADOPTED CLASS OF EMS PARAMEDICS.
UPON COMPLETION OF A WORKING TEST PERIOD OF NO LESS THAN SIX MONTHS NOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS, THAT INDIVIDUAL COULD BE CONFIRMED IN THE CLASS OF EMS PARAMEDICS, AND THAT WOULD START HIS FIRE DEPARTMENT SENIORITY DATE.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JOSH?
I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH NOW, OBVIOUSLY, YOU WERE IN COURT WITH ME THIS MORNING.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AS CONCERNS, SOME OF WHICH MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BOARD'S PROBLEM, BUT I THINK IT'S FAIR FOR THEM TO AT LEAST HERE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THESE EMS EMPLOYEES GO INTO THE PROVISIONAL STATUS, IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT THEY DECIDE TO DO IT.
THEY LOSE THEIR CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS THAT THEY WOULD CURRENTLY HAVE.
IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING?
>> IT IS MY APPRECIATION AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE FACT OF THIS IS THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CITY OF BATON RIDGE'S CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM,
[01:30:02]
THEIR MUNICIPAL SYSTEM, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE INTO A TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.BASICALLY, YES, THEY WOULD BE MOVING OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM AND POTENTIALLY INTO THE FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD COULD DO TO PROTECT THOSE EMPLOYEES WHILE THEY'RE IN THAT PROVISIONAL?
>> NO. THOSE ARE TEMPORARY JOBS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I FIGURED. AS FAR AS THE BENEFITS, BEFORE I GET THERE, QUALIFICATIONS.
I GUESS WHEN YOU GUYS DO YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS, THE QUALIFICATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT.
>> ARE WE GOING TO BE FACED WITH I GUESS, EMS EMPLOYEES THAT MAY POTENTIALLY HAVE TO TAKE EMOTIONS BECAUSE OF QUALIFICATIONS? I UNDERSTAND NOT PASSING A TEST, BUT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS [OVERLAPPING] SITUATION.
>> I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE SOME IDEAS ON HOW TO PROTECT THE EMS EMPLOYEES AS IT COMES TO THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS.
BUT AT THIS TIME, WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, I WOULD NOT WANT TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.
BUT I DO HAVE THOUGHTS ON HOW THE BOARD CAN PROTECT THESE EMS EMPLOYEES THROUGH THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATION STRUCTURE.
>> THAT'S CERTAINLY FAIR, SO AT LEAST THERE'S A PATHWAY TO PROTECT THEM FROM A QUALIFICATION STANDPOINT?
>> STILL HAVE TO PASS THE TEST, BUT AT LEAST FROM THE QUALIFICATIONS?
>> I KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT OVER THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, I GUESS, CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, AND IT MAY BE THAT NEEDED DIRECTED TOWARDS THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
IN TERMS OF BENEFITS THAT EMPLOYEES WILL GET IF THEY ARE TRANSFERRED INTO THIS FIRE AND POLICE SYSTEM, ARE THERE SOME TANGIBLE BENEFITS THAT ARE BETTER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE IN THE CITY SYSTEM?
>> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU'RE A FIRE EMPLOYEE, UNDER THE STATE STATUTE AND THE BOARD RULES ADOPTED BY THIS BOARD, UNDER SICK LEAVE, YOU GET 52 WEEKS PER SICK LEAVE PER EVENT IF THE NEEDS REQUIRE.
IF YOU NEED 52 WEEKS OF SICK LEAVE, YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO 52 WEEKS OF SICK LEAVE, WHICH I DOUBT THAT THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE CURRENTLY GET 52 WEEKS OF SICK LEAVE.
THE LAW ON ANNUAL LEAVE SAYS THAT AFTER THE FIRST YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT, YOU GET 18 CALENDAR DAYS OF SICK LEAVE.
FROM YEAR ONE TO YEAR 10, YOU GET 18 CALENDAR DAYS AND THEN THERE'S ONE YEAR ADDED AFTER THAT, SO THAT'S THE MINIMUM.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM READING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BETWEEN THE FIRE UNION AND THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, YOU ACTUALLY GAIN TIME A LITTLE QUICKER THAN THE STATUTORY MINIMUM.
THEY WOULD AT A MINIMUM, GET THE STATUTORY MINIMUMS AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT THEY WILL GET ANNUAL LEAVE AT A FASTER RATE THAN WHAT THE STATUTORY MINIMUMS ARE, SO THEY WOULD GET THAT.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF ANYBODY WHO BECOMES A MEMBER OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHETHER IT'S IN A EMS CAPACITY, IF THEY CHOOSE TO GET THEIR FIREFIGHTER ONE CERTIFICATION, THEN THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAY, THAT EMS TODAY IS NOT ENTITLED TO.
BUT THAT'S A STATE STATUTE THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM CIVIL SERVICE, AND PART OF THAT STATUTE DOES REQUIRE THAT THE EMPLOYEE BE AN EMPLOYEE FOR ONE YEAR AND HAVE RECEIVED THEIR FIREFIGHTER ONE CERTIFICATION.
IF ANY CURRENT OR FUTURE EMPLOYEES OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, IF THEY'RE COMING IN THROUGH THE EMS DIVISION WOULD CHOOSE TO GET THEIR FIREFIGHTER ONE CERTIFICATION, THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO $600 A MONTH.
THAT'S THE CURRENT RATE OF SUPPLEMENTAL PAY PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, WHICH EMS CURRENTLY IS NOT ENTITLED TO.
>> ACTUALLY, I WAS SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT IT, WOULDN'T THEY GET THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS PROTECTION?
>> THEY WOULD GET THE FIREFIGHTER BILL OF RIGHTS, SO FIREFIGHTER BILL OF RIGHTS ARE ACTUALLY GREATER RIGHTS THAN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BILL OF RIGHTS.
[01:35:01]
AT LEAST THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF THEM BECAUSE UNDER THE FIREFIGHTER BILL OF RIGHTS, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CANNOT EVEN BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION WITHOUT WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYEE.IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST YOU, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS TO GIVE YOU WRITTEN NOTICE THAT THEY'RE ABOUT TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST YOU AND UNDER THE FIREFIGHTER BILL OF RIGHTS, THAT INVESTIGATION MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS.
>> WHILE WE'RE ON THIS SUBJECT, THE SENIORITY SYSTEM WITHIN THE FIRE SERVICE, WOULD THAT APPLY TO THEM AS WELL, GOING INTO A DIVISION, WILL THEY HAVE SENIORITY WITHIN THEIR DIVISION OR SENIORITY THROUGHOUT THE FIRE SERVICE?
>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO ESTABLISH SENIORITY IN THE FIRE SERVICE, IT'S DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY.
HOWEVER, AS I EXPRESSED, IN ORDER TO PROTECT ANYBODY THAT MAY BE COMING IN FROM BATON ROUGE EMS, I BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN STRUCTURE THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR THOSE PROMOTIONAL CLASSES IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WOULD PROTECT THE EMS EMPLOYEES AND WOULD BASICALLY STOP THE CURRENT FIRE EMPLOYEES FROM TESTING AND JUMPING ANYONE IN THE EMS DIVISION.
BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE AT THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATION, SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE TO ENTERTAIN.
>> THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ADD TO THAT WAS TO MR. NUGAL'S QUESTION, AND IT MAY BE AN UNFAIR QUESTION.
>> AS FAR AS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, IF THE RUMORS ARE TRUE, AND THERE'S A MERGER OF THESE TWO DIVISIONS, DO YOU SEE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M THE PERSON TO ASK THAT QUESTION.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IN ANSWER TO IT IS THAT, OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS SOMETHING THE MUNICIPALITY IS LOOKING AT, AND I WOULD THINK THAT THE FIRE CHIEF COULD BE THE MORE PROPER PERSON TO ASK THE QUESTION OF.
>> BEFORE YOU CALL IN. ONE LAST QUESTION FOR ME.
GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THAT PROBATIONARY.
CHIEF, DON'T GET COMFORTABLE, IT WON'T TAKE LONG.
YOU DO YOUR CLASSIFICATION STUDY, YOU PRESENT YOUR CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE AS A BOARD REVIEW IT AND ENTIRELY REJECTED WHOLE CLOTH. WHAT HAPPENS?
YOU CAN TELL US WHY YOU REJECTED IT.
IS IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY WE'VE WRITTEN IT? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CLASSIFICATION THAT YOU DON'T LIKE.
THE LAW ALLOWS THE EMS DIVISION TO BE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
WHEN WE'VE PRESENTED YOU WITH A CLASS PLAN, WE'RE ASSURING YOU THAT THIS POSITION FITS WITHIN THAT CLASSIFICATION PLAN.
IN MY MIND, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL ME WHY YOU'RE REJECTING IT.
WHAT DID MY OFFICE DO WRONG TO TELL YOU THAT YOU BELIEVE IT'S A REJECTED ISSUE.
>> IN THE CAPACITY OF IF WE WERE REJECTING IT ON GROUNDS OF BELIEVING THAT IT DID NOT MEET CIVIL SERVICE, AND I KNOW I KEEP CIRCLING BACK TO YOU.
>> WELL, AGAIN, 332481.1 SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THE MUNICIPALITY TO PUT AN EMS DIVISION WITHIN THEIR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE CAN AGREE THAT THE STATE STATUTE ALLOWS FOR IT.
>> BECAUSE WE CAN ESTABLISH THAT THE STATE STATUTE ALLOWS FOR IT, ONCE MY OFFICE PRESENTS TO YOU THE CLASS PLANS, YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT IT'S IN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THESE POSITIONS FALL WITHIN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH 332481.1.
WE WILL HAVE WORKED VERY EXTENSIVELY WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
JUST SO YOU KNOW THE WAY WE CONDUCT A CLASS ANALYSIS OR A JOB ANALYSIS IS, WE SEND QUESTIONNAIRES TO EVERY PERMANENT EMPLOYEE.
IN THIS CASE, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, LET'S ASSUME WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A BATON ROUGE EMS PERSPECTIVE, THEN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO SEND QUESTIONNAIRES TO ANYONE IN A PARTICULAR JOB TITLE THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED TO US BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR AT LEAST A YEAR BECAUSE WE ONLY LOOK AT PEOPLE THAT ARE CONFIRMED THAT ARE PERMANENT.
[01:40:04]
WELL, SINCE THIS BATON ROUGE EMS IS NOT CURRENTLY WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT THEY'RE THE EMPLOYEES THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT, TO DETERMINE JOB DUTIES.WE'RE GOING TO SPEAK WITH THEM DIRECTLY AND WE'RE GOING TO SEND A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ANYONE WHO'S BEEN THERE FOR ONE YEAR OR GREATER.
>> UNDERSTOOD. YOU PROMISED ME TWO ANSWERS.
THE SECOND IS IF WE TELL YOU TO KICK ROCKS ANYWAY. WHAT HAPPENS?
>> I THINK AT THAT POINT, THE DEPARTMENT OR THE MUNICIPALITY IS GOING TO FILE SOME FORM OF LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU.
ITS NOT GOING TO BE THE OFFICE STATE EXAMINER.
>> AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN, THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.
ONE OF OUR STATUTORY DUTIES IS TO MAINTAIN THE CLASS PLAN, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING.
>> I THINK SO. THANK YOU, MISS BARTON, FEEL APPRECIATED.
>> BUT I THINK CHIEF HERE HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> THERE GOES MY QUESTION. MY BAD.
>> CHIEF, IT WAS A QUESTION I POSED TO THE STATE EXAMINER.
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE I GUESS THIS COULD BE A MAJOR CHANGE FOR YOU IF IT WORKS OUT THE WAY THAT SOME ARE SAYING, I GUESS MAYBE 150, 200 EMPLOYEES POTENTIALLY COULD COME OVER, ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS TO MR. NEWVILLE'S QUESTION TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A CONCERN.
>> THAT IS THAT IS DUTY NUMBER ONE IN THE FORMATION OF THIS BOARD.
>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE BATONROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WHAT THIS DOES FOR THE BADGE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS MAKES US STRONGER BY NUMBERS, AND ALSO BRINGING IN A DIFFERENT BRANCH TO BUILD ON THE CITY OF BATONROUGE EAST BADGE PARISH, BRINGING IN THESE HIGHLY QUALIFIED MEDICS TO JOIN IN WITH THE BATON FIRE DEPARTMENT, PROVIDE THE CLASS ONE SERVICE THAT WE ALREADY DO.
WITH THEIR ACCREDITATION, IT PUTS TWO TOP NOTCH DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER OPERATING UNDER ONE UNIFIED COMMAND.
CHIEF, FEEL FREE TO TELL ME THAT EITHER THIS HASN'T BEEN DECIDED YET OR THIS IS STILL IN DISCUSSION AND YOU'RE NOT READY TO DISCUSS IT, BUT TO NOT HIDING THE BALL, TO GO BACK TO THOSE INITIAL CONCERNS THAT I HAD.
WHAT, IF YOU KNOW, IS BEING ENVISIONED? IS IT TWO PRIMARILY SEPARATE DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THAT LARGER UMBRELLA? ARE YOU PRIMARILY LOOKING FOR THE BULK OR ALL OF YOUR EITHER FIREFIGHTERS OR EMS MEMBERS TO BE DUAL ROLE?
>> I DO NOT ENVISION TODAY OF BEING DUAL ROLLED.
I BELIEVE WHEN INDIVIDUAL SAYS THEY WANT TO BE A FIREFIGHTER, THEY WANT TO BE A FIREFIGHTER.
WHEN INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO BE A PARAMEDIC, THEY WANT TO BE A PARAMEDIC.
LOOKING AT OTHER PLACES, THAT HAS BEEN THE FAILURE OF FIRE BASED EMS IS WHERE THEY STARTED FORCING FIREFIGHTERS TO RIDE AN AMBULANCE [OVERLAPPING] OR AN AMBULANT OR A PARAMEDIC BEING FORCED TO BECOME A FIREFIGHTER.
WE DON'T WANT THAT. WE WANT TO KEEP AS WE ALREADY HAVE, SIR, WE HAVE 11 DIVISIONS IN THE BATONROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY TODAY.
IF THIS WAS TO HAPPEN, THIS COMES NUMBER 12, AND THAT WOULD BE IN THEIR SOLE JOB OF BEING A PARAMEDIC THROUGHOUT THEIR CAREER UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TO.
ALSO, A BIG ADVANTAGE OF THIS WITHIN THE BANDAGE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENTS.
WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE SOME OF OUR JOB DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW EMS PERSONNEL TO MOVE OVER TO OTHER DIVISIONS.
AGAIN, THAT'S A BENEFIT TO THE EMS PERSONNEL.
THEY HAVE ROOM FOR ADVANCEMENT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TODAY.
>> I THINK I REMEMBER I HAD TWO CONCERNS, BUT THEY WERE PRIMARILY WRAPPED AND THE OTHER WAS AS FAR AS ADVANCEMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD CONCEIVE OF A SCENARIO IN WHICH LET'S SAY THAT YOU'RE BEING A TERRIBLE CHIEF AND YOU REALLY LOVE FIREMEN AND YOU REALLY HATE EMS PEOPLE, AND SO YOU CREATE A STRIATED ADVANCEMENT SCENARIO WHERE IF YOU'RE ONLY EMS, YOU ONLY GET THIS HIGH, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO FIRE, YOU GET THIS HIGH AND POTENTIALLY WOULD CAUSE ANIMOSITY.
YOU'RE NOT ENVISIONING A PARADIGM LIKE THAT.
>> NO, SIR. WE HAVE MADE SURE, AS WE'VE LOOKED THROUGH THIS IN OUR RESEARCH, TO TRY TO MIRROR OUR LARGEST DIVISION OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS, OUR SUPPRESSION DIVISION.
WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MIRROR THE EMS DIVISION AND THE SUPPRESSION DIVISION TO BE IN LINE WITH EACH OTHER, DUAL THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH DIVISION, SHOULD IT SAY.
>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
>> THERE'S ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP WE TALK ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES AND WHAT'S SOME OF THE PERKS OF THAT BY STATE STATUTE, ALSO A FIRE INDIVIDUAL, BY STATE LAW RECEIVES 2% MERIT INCREASES ANNUALLY.
IF YOU DON'T RECEIVE A 3% UP UNTIL I THINK 23RD YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT.
[01:45:04]
THAT'S ANOTHER GREAT BENEFIT.THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN A BENEFIT FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND TRY TO REDUCE SOME OF OUR THINGS WE DO EVERY DAY WE CAN MERGE TOGETHER, BUT IT'S ALSO A GREAT BENEFIT FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
>> CHIEF, THIS MAY NOT BE A FAIR QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S TALKING ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS, AND I DO RESPECT THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF THE EMS PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT TEMPORARY LOSS OF CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTION.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT IN TERMS OF ALLEVIATING CONCERNS OF WHAT I WOULD THINK TO BE UNFAIRNESS OR DECISIONS ON A WHIM, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S MISCONDUCT, IT'S DEALT WITH.
BUT I THINK THE FEAR IS JUST SOMETHING ARBITRARY HAPPENING AND THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE.
>> SURE. THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN IS WHAT'S THERE.
I CAN TELL YOU THIS, I'VE SAID IT, AND I'LL SAY IT PUBLICLY TODAY.
ONCE THAT HAPPENS, WE KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME BEND IN US BECAUSE IT'S A NEW DAY FOR THE EMS EMPLOYEES.
WE DO NOT WANT IF THIS WAS TO TAKE PLACE ANY EMS EMPLOYEE TO HAVE CONCERN DURING THEIR WORK AND TEST PERIOD, THAT THE FIRE CHIEF COULD JUST ARBITRARILY TERMINATE THEM.
WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING THAT, WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING OUR EMPLOYEES AND GETTING THEM IN THEIR GROWTH IN THEIR DEPARTMENT.
UNLESS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BLATANTLY OUT THERE THAT VIOLATES EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN.
AS YOU SEE, WE DON'T COME TO YOU VERY OFTEN NOW WITH MANY DISCIPLINARY DEALS BECAUSE WE TRY TO HANDLE IT IN HOUSE WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENTS.
WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THAT TO SHOW THAT SUPPORT FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE EMS DIVISION.
>> CHIEF, ONE MORE QUESTIONS. IT'S WIDELY KNOWN THAT EMS HAS A HIGH TURNOVER RATE.
THE BURNOUT IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WITH EMS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE THINGS.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU MAYBE COULD DO TO ADDRESS THAT OR YOU WOULD DO TO ADDRESS THAT TO KEEP THOSE PARAMEDICS AND THOSE GUYS ON THOSE TRUCKS?
RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON WITHIN THE WHOLE CITY PARISH WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME WORKS, BUT FIRST OF ALL, IS TO GET THEM MEN AND WOMEN A BUDGET INCREASE FOR THEIR WAGES OR FOR THEIR SALARIES.
BUT WHAT CAN I CONTROL IMMEDIATELY IS AS WE THINK BY DOING THIS PROCESS OF THE RECRUITMENT IS THE PROTECTION THAT MOST EMS SERVICES DO NOT HAVE IN THE STATE, LOUISIANA.
BY TALKING TO MANY PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE AND OTHER PLACES, THEY WISH THEY HAD WHAT THE BATONROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS BY OUR UNION AGREEMENT, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE UNION.
WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO COME UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ALREADY.
WE FEEL ONCE WE GET THAT, THAT WILL HELP US MAINTAIN THAT.
OF COURSE, THE OPPORTUNITIES OF PROMOTIONS, YOUNG PARAMEDIC OR EMT COULD COME IN AND SEE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENTS, NOT STAY HERE FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT STAY HERE FOR 30 YEARS AND GET A RETIREMENT.
>> I APPRECIATE IT. BEFORE I GO BACK TO THE AUDIENCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT FROM THE BOARDS STANDPOINT, SHOULD THIS HAPPEN, THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 150-200 EMPLOYEES, I THINK, ADDED TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF CIVIL SERVICE, BOYD.
WE ONLY HAVE A SINGLE EMPLOYEE.
I'M HOPING THAT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND OTHERS WILL CONSIDER THAT AS THEY CONSIDER THIS.
FOR THE RECORD, THAT IS A LOT MORE WORK TO PUT ON ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S ALREADY PRETTY DAMN BUSY.
ARE THERE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JANICE WILLARD, AND I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE EMS ASSOCIATION, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF, MY FELLOW CO-WORKERS.
AS YOU CAN TELL, THERE'S NOBODY UP HERE SPEAKING FOR US AS EMS. THERE'S A LOT OF WHAT IFS, A LOT OF UNKNOWNS, A LOT OF WE HAVE SOME IDEAS.
WE'VE ALREADY MADE IT THROUGH OUR PROBATIONARY PERIOD.
WE'RE IN AN ADDITIONAL PROBATIONARY PERIOD.
WHAT IF WE HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT DON'T PASS THAT TEST? WHAT IF WE HAVE EMPLOYEES WHO DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CURRENT JOB THAT THEY'RE HOLDING? WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT NOBODY'S GOING TO LOSE THEIR JOB, BUT WE HAVEN'T EVER BEEN TOLD THAT NOBODY'S GOING TO LOSE THEIR POSITION. OTHER THINGS.
[01:50:02]
WE FEEL THAT THIS IS A PREMATURE STEP IN CHANGING THE FIRE CHIEFS JOB DESCRIPTION BECAUSE STUDIES HAVEN'T BEEN DONE.WE'RE CHANGING SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING, CAN WE ACTUALLY DO THIS? CAN WE DO THIS UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN OF GOVERNMENT? DO WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE PLAN OF GOVERNMENT? HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? THE WAY THAT WE SEE IT IS WE'RE DOING THIS STEP.
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE WANT, BUT WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW IF WE CAN DO IT.
WE FEEL THAT THAT'S VERY PREMATURE.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE STUDIES? WHY DON'T WE HAVE A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS? WHY DON'T WE KNOW HOW MUCH THIS IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO SAVE THE CITY AND HAVE THAT STUFF IN WRITING? I CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
WE'RE MERGING FIRE AND EMS IS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
NEW YORK WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO MOVE TO TAKE EMS AWAY FROM FIRE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SUCH A DISMAL FAILURE.
THERE'S SO MANY SCENARIOS IN SO MANY CASES WHERE IT DOESN'T WORK, WHERE IT DOESN'T IN FACT SAVE THE CITY MONEY, IT ENDS UP COSTING THE CITY MORE MONEY.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS GOING BACK TO THE CITY AND SAYING, WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL $1 MILLION, $900,000 TO OPERATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, AND THAT'S WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS OF MERGING.
THESE ARE ALL CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE.
YES, WE DO HAVE OUR PROBLEMS. I CAN'T EVER SAY THAT.
BUT WE OPERATE EFFICIENTLY, WE OPERATE AS A STANDALONE FACILITY.
CHIEF KIMBALL SAYS THAT HE'S GOING TO WORK ON GIVING US A RAISE.
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THAT RAISE NOW OUTSIDE OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIX OUR OWN ISSUES WITHIN OURSELVES, WE DON'T NEED TO BE UNDER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UNLESS THERE'S SOME SOLID, GOOD EVIDENCE THAT SAYS, THIS IS GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR EMS. THIS IS GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE PARISH.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS AND WHY ARE WE CHANGING THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND RECLASSIFYING THE FIRE CHIEFS POSITION BEFORE WE HAVE THESE THINGS IN PLACE AND BEFORE WE'VE LOOKED AT ANY OF THESE THINGS? MR. VIGNER ACTUALLY SAID HIMSELF, THAT IF WE'VE STARTED ANY STUDIES, THEY'VE JUST BARELY STARTED.
THIS CHANGING OF THE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE FIRE CHIEF JUST REALLY SEEMS PREMATURE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT EITHER DEFERRED.
IF YOU, THE BOARD DECIDES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT, WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY WANT IT TO BE CONTINGENT UPON THE BENEFITS OF THIS TAKEOVER HAPPENING AND US GOING UNDER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
>> SAY THAT AGAIN, YOU WOULD WANT IT CONTINGENT ON WHAT?
>> THE ACTUAL TAKING OVER OF EMS AND PUTTING IT UNDER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT Y'ALL DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN.
>> WE DON'T. THAT'S WHY WE WANT HIS JOB DESCRIPTION TO BE CONTINGENT ON WHETHER THIS IS A A FEASIBLE THING.
>> YEAH. WE WANT IT CONTINGENT ON IS EMS MOVING UNDER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EVEN FEASIBLE? CHANGING HIS JOB CLASSIFICATION, THE CONTINGENCY IS, IF IT'S DETERMINED AFTER STUDIES ARE MADE, THAT NO, WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT CLASSIFICATION AND PUT HIM BACK, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A DIRECTOR WHO HAS ALL OF THE EXACT SAME ABILITIES THAT WOULD BE GOING TO CHIEF KIMBALL.
WE HAVE THAT WHOLE SYSTEM IN PLACE CURRENTLY.
>> OKAY. I SAW THE STATE EXAMINER GOT UP TO RESPOND TO A POINT.
I WILL SAY GENERALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN MAKE A CLASS PLAN CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE THE CLASS PLAN IS ESSENTIALLY LAW, SO IT CAN'T BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING ELSE.
AS FAR AS THE FEASIBILITY OF IT, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO REALIZE IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY SAID IT'S FEASIBLE.
I THINK PART OF WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS IS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE DONE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, RIGHT? IT CAN BE DONE, IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A GOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA.
>> ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, MISS BOYD?
>> THE CLASS PLAN CANNOT BE ADOPTED CONTINGENT ON ANYTHING.
HOWEVER, KEEP IN MIND THAT IF FOR SOME REASON, THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE CHOOSES NOT TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND AMEND IT OUT.
[01:55:03]
IT'S JUST LIKE THE LEGISLATURE.YOU CAN ADD STUFF TO THE LAW, YOU CAN TAKE STUFF OUT, AND YOU CAN DO IT A LOT FASTER THAN THE LEGISLATURE.
>> I GUESS TO MR. ROBINSON'S POINT, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THE POTENTIAL INCREASE OF WORKLOAD TO THE BOARD?
>> YOU WILL DEFINITELY BE CALLING FOR MORE TESTS, RIGHT? IT'S AN INCREASE TO MY OFFICE AS WELL.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE'RE HOPING TO ROLL OUT AN ELECTRONIC PERSONNEL ACTION SYSTEM SO THAT WE WILL QUIT MOVING PAPER AROUND.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE DEPARTMENT WOULD PUT IT IN, IT WOULD GO TO THE CHIEF AND THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL, AND THEN IT WOULD ELECTRONICALLY COME TO YOUR SECRETARY.
YOUR SECRETARY WOULD THEN SET A BOARD DATE FOR THOSE TO BE THOSE ACTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWED AT YOUR BOARD MEETING, AND THEN UPON THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF IT, YOU ALL WOULD APPROVE IT AT THE BOARD MEETING.
THEN THE CHAIRMAN WOULD BE ABLE TO BULK APPROVE EVERYTHING IN THE SYSTEM, AND WE WILL HOUSE THE RECORDS, BUT THE SYSTEM WILL NOT OPERATE RETROACTIVELY.
ONCE BATON ROUGE COMES INTO THE SYSTEM, IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE YOUR RECORDS PROSPECTIVELY.
WE WILL HOUSE THOSE RECORDS FOR YOU ELECTRONICALLY.
THERE WILL BE A PRINT FUNCTIONALITY TO IT IF YOU NEED TO PRINT SOMETHING OUT.
I'M HOPING TO START ROLLING THIS OUT TO DEPARTMENTS AND JURISDICTIONS IN EARLY 2026, BUT AT THIS POINT, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC DATE.
THAT SHOULD HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF YOUR SECRETARY'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE SENSE THAT PAPER.
BUT FOR POSTING FOR EXAMS, YES, YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EXAMS YOU'RE GOING TO CALL FOR.
THAT MEANS SHE'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
SHE'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROLL CALLS.
EVERYTHING THAT SHE CURRENTLY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.
YES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
>> IN FACT, THIS BOARD'S WORK LOAD WILL INCREASE.
>> POTENTIALLY BECAUSE NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL UNIT THAT WILL HAVE APPEALS AND HEARINGS AND SO ON.
>> CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. YES, SIR.
>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO PREMATURELY CUT YOU OFF.
>> IT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, AS WELL.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MIKE DENICO, I'M A RESIDENT OF ZACHARY, LOUISIANA, RIGHT HERE IN THIS PARISH.
I REITERATE A LOT OF WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE SAID.
WE NEED TO DO STUDIES TO SEE IF THIS WILL EVEN WORK VERY WELL IN THIS PARISH FOR THE CITIZENS.
YOU CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN.
I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE IT WAS POSTPONED TO THIS DATE.
IT HAD IN IT THAT THE FIRE CHIEF WOULD BE OVER EMSS BUDGET, ALL THEIR ASSETS AND WHATEVER THEY HAVE IN ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS RIGHT BECAUSE THAT WOULD LEAD UP TO THE FIRE CHIEF AFTER THIS FIRE CHIEF AFTER THIS FIRE CHIEF.
THEY WOULD ALL INHERIT THAT SAME CLASSIFICATION PLAN.
AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? I BELIEVE SO.
THERE'S NO CITIZENS THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH ANY OF THIS, AND SOME OF YOU ARE PROBABLY CITIZENS IN THIS PARISH.
IT WILL AFFECT YOU ON HOW IT WOULD BE.
NOTHING AGAINST THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE WORKED SIDE BY SIDE FOR YEARS.
BUT THEY WERE A CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND WE ARE A PARISH ENTITY.
THAT ENTITY WAS STARTED IN 1982, AND IT WAS DONE BY THE METRO COUNCIL TO BE IT SOLE ENTITY, NOT UNDER THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, NOT UNDER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
REALLY CONSIDER YOUR CHANGES IN THAT CLASSIFICATION PLANS.
HOW IT WILL AFFECT THE CITY NOW, THE CITY PARISH AND HOW IT WILL AFFECT ALL THE PUBLIC DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE IT WILL.
IT'S AFFECTING THE EMPLOYEES AT EMS RIGHT NOW.
JUST LIKE YOU SAID, IF THEY HAVE TO GO ON THE PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL THAT IS.
BUT YOU HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT'S BEEN THERE 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 YEARS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO UNDER PROVISIONAL AND PASS THE TEST, AND THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THEIR JOBS.
PRE HOSPITAL CARE IS A VERY HARD JOB TO DO.
PLEASE MAKE YOUR DECISIONS AND LET IT WEIGH HEAVILY ON YOU. THANK YOU.
[02:00:02]
>> THANK YOU, SIR. OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?
>> HI. MY NAME IS JAQUELINE O'KEEFE.
I AM A FORMER FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH EMS, CURRENTLY A PART TIME EMPLOYEE OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH CMS. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MY FELLOW STREET MEDIC CO WORKERS.
THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS YOU MENTIONED AN INCOMPLETE PICTURE HERE AS TO WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE. I AGREE.
I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, VERY FEW ANSWERS.
WE'RE HERE TODAY TO CHANGE THE JOB CLASSIFICATION OF THE FIRE CHIEF TO INCLUDE A DIVISION OF EMS. I'M WONDERING WHY THAT'S NECESSARY.
THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE ALREADY HAS A CHIEF OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL OPERATIONS.
HE IS EMPLOYED BY EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH EMS. I THINK THAT RECLASSIFYING HIS JOB DESCRIPTION WOULD BE A REDUNDANCY THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT NEEDED.
WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AS TO HOW EMS EMPLOYEES WOULD TRANSFER OVER TO THE FIRE SERVICE, WHAT KIND OF PROTECTIONS THEY WOULD HAVE.
SITTING HERE TODAY, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF AMBIGUOUS TERMS. THINGS WE COULD DO. THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DONE.
I'VE HEARD NO DEFINITIVES AS THIS IS THE PLAN.
WE HAVE A PLAN. EXCUSE ME FOR JUST A MOMENT.
WE SPOKE ON HIRING A PERSON INTO THE FIRE SERVICE, DOING A JOB STUDY ON THAT JOB CLASS, SEEING IF THAT JOB CLASSIFICATION WOULD FIT AND THEN CREATING A CLASS PLAN.
HAS THAT BEEN DONE HERE? HAVE WE DONE A STUDY ON THE CURRENT CLASS PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING?
>> YOU'LL NEED TO COME UP. THOUGH, AS YOU'RE COMING UP, MA'AM, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM SPEAKING TO HER PREVIOUSLY IS THAT THE STUDY THAT THEY DO OF THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN IS SPECIFICALLY TO SEE IF IT FITS WITHIN THE CIVIL SERVICE PARADIGM.
IT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE DONE UNTIL THE CHIEF'S JOB DESCRIPTION.
>> I TOOK HER QUESTION TO MEAN, HAVE WE DONE A JOB ANALYSIS ON THE CHIEF'S POSITION?
>> THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE JOB IS.
WE'RE JUST ADDING DUTIES TO IT.
I WANT TO GIVE HER AN ACCURATE ANSWER.
>> I'M GOING TO REITERATE THAT WE STILL HAVEN'T DONE A STUDY AS TO WHETHER THESE DUTIES ARE FEASIBLE, WHETHER THEY WORK CAN BE DONE.
THAT DOES BRING ME TO ANOTHER POINT.
WE WANT TO CHANGE THE FIRE CHIEFS JOB CLASSIFICATION BEFORE WE DO STUDIES AS TO WHETHER THIS MERGER WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA OR TO WHETHER THEY COULD CREATE THEIR OWN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION UNDER THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT? I THINK WE'RE ASKING IF WE CAN DO THIS BEFORE WE ASK IF WE SHOULD.
BECAUSE THOSE STUDIES HAVEN'T BEEN DONE.
THE ANALYSIS HAVEN'T BEEN DONE.
THERE'S NOT MUCH IN WRITING TO SUPPORT THIS.
>> BUT AS I UNDERSTAND THAT IN SOME OF THE COMMENTS MR. DOM MADE EARLIER, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT QUESTION. IT CAN BE DONE.
THIS BOARD IS NOT GOING TO DECIDE IF IT WILL BE DONE.
WE WILL SIMPLY MAKE IT POSSIBLE BY CHANGING THE FIRE CHIEF'S JOB DESCRIPTION, BUT WE WILL NOT DECIDE IF IT SHOULD BE DONE.
>> YES, SIR. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK, DOES THIS BOARD HANDLE THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM?
>> WE DON'T HANDLE THEIR RETIREMENT SYSTEM EITHER.
>> OKAY. WELL, WE SPOKE ABOUT WORKLOADS.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WOULD BE ROUGHLY 250 EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD NEED TO TRANSFER FROM THE CITY PARISH RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO THE STATE FIREFIGHTERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
THAT'S TO ME, SOUNDS LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL WORKLOAD.
[02:05:04]
>> YEAH. I THINK IT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO US, LIKE HE SAID, BUT YOU WOULDN'T TRANSFER IT TO THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
I THINK YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE STATE RETIREMENT.
>> WELL, THAT'S THE THING. RIGHT?
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE.
>> JACOB MORGAN PRESIDENT THE BATON'S FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATION.
I'M COMPLETELY NEUTRAL ON THIS.
BATON'S EMS ARE ALREADY IN CPERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
I JUST WANT THE RECORD TO KNOW THAT.
>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? IF NOT, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND ASK THE BOARD, WHAT'S ITS DESIRE.
>> BEFORE WE ACTUALLY TAKE A VOTE ON THE CLASS PLAN, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT US TO GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SO I COULD TALK ABOUT THE LAWSUIT AND JUST THE DIFFERENT POTENTIAL ISSUES.
>> AS LONG AS IT'S VERY CLEAR BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANY DELIBERATION ON THE MATTER BEFORE THE BOARD SHOULD BE DONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
BUT EXCLUSIVELY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE LAWSUIT AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY CAPTIONED VERSUS BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL FIRE.
IN THE AGENDA, MR. CHAIR, I WOULD MOVE TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION SPECIFICALLY TO DISCUSS THE LAWSUIT STYLED AS THE EAST BATON ROUGE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PARAMEDIC ASSOCIATION ET AL VERSUS THE BATON ROUGE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ET AL.
DO WE NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR DETERMINATION ABOUT OUR POSITION ON ABOVE IT HERE?
>> HOLD ON. YOU SAID MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE [OVERLAPPING]
I DID THE JUSTIFICATION I BELIEVE.
>> WE'RE TAKING THAT ADVISEMENT THAT WE'LL BE DOING AS RELATES TO PUBLIC HEARING.
>> YEAH. WHEN WE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU ALL JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS DECISION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING SOME OF YOUR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, BUT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE LOSS.
>> I'LL WITHDRAW MY PREVIOUS MOTION, MR. CHAIR. I WILL MOVE TO TEMPORARILY TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE FIRE CHIEF'S JOB DESCRIPTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A VOTE ON THAT OR A SECOND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SECOND BY MR. LEMON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAP IN THE DECISION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING. SAY AYE.
>> NOW I WILL MOVE TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE LAWSUIT STATUS LES BATON ROUGE, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PARAMEDIC ASSOCIATION ET AL VERSUS THE BAT RIDGE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ET AL WITH THE DOCKET NUMBER THAT'S CURRENTLY PENDING FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED IN THE AGENDA, BUT SPECIFICALLY REVISED STATUTE 42:1782 AS IT PERTAINS TO PENDING LITIGATION.
>> WELL, THEN THERE'S ALSO 10 AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>> YES. I'M WANTING TO GO INTO THE EXECUTIVES.
LET ME JUST SAY IT LIKE THAT. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> OPPOSERS, NAY. WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND WE WILL BE BACK HOPEFULLY IN NOT TOO LONG.
>> I'D LIKE A MOTION TO RETURN TO OUR POSSESSION.
SECOND, BY MR. RICKS, THAT WE GO BACK INTO POSSESSION.
WHAT'S THE POSITION OF THE BOARD?
>> WE NEED A ROLL CALL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOW WE'RE BACK IN OPEN SESSION. MR. DUVALL.
>> MR. CHAIR, IN THE MATTER OF WADE HILL,
[02:10:04]
RATHER, I MOVE TO DENY THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.>> I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY ALL THE DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.
>> MR. CHAIR, I MAKE THE MOTION AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENT FROM BOTH ATTORNEYS.
ONE, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THE CODIFICATION DISCUSSED DOES NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY LUDER MEN ITS PROGENY ON THE NOTICE OF PENALTY.
AS FAR AS NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OF THE VIOLATION OF LAWS, I BELIEVE IN READING THE LETTER PROVIDED BY THE APPOINTING ENTITY THAT THEY WENT INTO EXTREME DEPTH AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ALL OF THE OFFENSES AND CHARGES, BUT PARTICULARLY THE VIOLATION OF LAWS.
I BELIEVE THAT FOR THOSE REASONS, THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO GRANT SUMMARY DISPOSITION, SO THAT IS WHY I MOVED TO DENY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD, ANY COMMENTS?
>> I AGREE, I THINK THE POLICE CHIEF HAD MET EVERY OBLIGATION THAT HE HAD TO NOTIFY THAT EMPLOYEE.
I AGREE WITH JOSH AND, TOO, DENY THAT MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE ARE DONE, THEN WE'RE READY TO VOTE.
THE MOTION IS TO DENY A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
ALL IN FAVOR, DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL ON THIS?
>> THE MOTION IS ADOPTED, AND WE CAN NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7.
>> CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT
[4. Consider Motion to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms in the Baton Rouge Fire and Police Departments.]
PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS FROM THE BATTERY FIRE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.>> MOVE BY MR. LEMON. WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> OPPOSE NAY. MOTION CARRIES.
[5. Consider Motion to Review/ Accept Test Results]
CONSIDER MOTION TO REVIEW, ACCEPT TEST RESULTS FOR CRIME STATUS.>> WE STILL HAVE CUTTING WE NEED TO DO?
>> NO, I DON'T HAVE CUTTERS TODAY.
>> HEY. NOW, THAT'S A KNIFE [LAUGHTER]
>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO OPEN IT.
>> WAS IT A TORSION BAR IN THE BACK?
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET INTO THIS.
>> YOU GUYS ARE CLINGER, I'M NOT GOING TO BE.
>> WHAT ARE OUR WORKERS' COMP RULES?
>> WE HAVE FOUR, TWO ELIGIBLE, ONE AND TWO INELIGIBLE FOR CRIME STATISTICIAN. LET ME PASS THAT OVER.
>> KEVIN, DID YOU WANT TO SEE THAT ONE?
>> CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TEST SCORES?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO THE TEST SCORES NOT ELIGIBLE.
>> THAT WE ACCEPT THE TEST SCORES. I HAVE A SECOND.
>> SECOND BY MR. LEMON. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSES NAY. MOTION CARRIES.
[02:15:01]
GIVE THAT TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9, CONSIDER A MOTION TO REJECT APPLICATIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS POSTING PERIOD OF JUNE 27TH, 2025, THROUGH JULY 17TH, 2025, IN THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR POLICE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN 2 CHARLENE BROOKS DUE TO PREVIOUS RETIREMENT.DO I HAVE A MOTION? THIS IS TO REJECT THE APPLICATION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR CHARLENE BROOK.
>> HAVE A MOTION TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR CHARLENE BROOK. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY MR. LEMON, ALL IN FAVOR [OVERLAPPING]
>> JUST AS A QUICK QUESTION, BECAUSE IS SAYING BECAUSE THEY ARE CURRENTLY RETIRED, THEY PREVIOUSLY RETIRED.
>> YOU PREVIOUSLY RETIRED FOUR YEARS AGO, AND YOU CAN'T COME BACK IN THAT POSITION.
>> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSES NAY? MOTION IS APPROVED.
AGENDA ITEM 10, CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT APPLICATIONS FROM THE POST PERIOD OF JUNE 27TH,
[7. Consider Motion to Approve/ Reject Applications from the previous posting period of June 27, 2025, through July 17, 2025, in the Baton Rouge Fire Department]
2025, TO JULY 17TH, 2025.IN THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE'RE REJECTING LATE FIRE CAPTAIN APPLICATION FOR MATTHEW MCCONNELL SUBMITTED ON JULY 18TH, 2025, POST PERIOD ENDED ON JULY 17TH, 2025.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. REJECT LATE FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR APPLICATION FOR REESE WOLF SUBMITTED ON JULY 18TH.
AGAIN, THIS IS AFTER THE POSTING PERIOD.
REJECT THE FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR APPLICATION FOR JASON ROYAL DUE TO RE-EMPLOYMENT, PROBATIONAL STATUS AFTER RESIGNATION, AND APPROVE FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATOR APPLICATION FOR NATHANIEL LEE DRUM.
PREVIOUSLY EXCLUDED IN ERROR BY THE OFFICER OF STATE EXAMINER.
THERE ARE SEVERAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN, 01, 2, 3, REJECTIONS, AND ONE APPROVAL.
>> MAYBE WE COULD, IF WE WANT TO, MAYBE SPLIT THE REJECTIONS AND APPROVALS INTO SEPARATE MOTIONS, I THINK THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REJECT THE LATE APPLICATION FOR FIRE CAPTAIN MATTHEW MCCONNELL, AND REJECT THE FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR APPLICATION, REESE WOLF, AND REJECT THE FIRE EQUIPMENT APPLICATION, JASON ROYAL.
>> SECOND IS THAT WE HAVE REJECTED SOME THREE APPLICATIONS.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR APPLICATION, NATHANIEL LEE DRUM.
>> SECOND. MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR APPLICATION FROM NATHANIEL LEE DRUM.
>> OPPOSES NAY. MOTION CARRIES.
NUMBER 11, CONSIDER A MOTION TO CALL FOR EXAMINATIONS IN
[8. Consider Motion to Call for Examinations in the Baton Rouge Police Department]
THE BATON POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR POLICE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN 1, POLICE SERGEANT. DO I HAVE A MOTION?>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CALL FOR AN EXAM FOR POLICE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN 1 AND POLICE SERGEANT.
>> MOVED BY MR. BAROS. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY MR. LEMON. ALL IN FAVOR OF AYE.
AGENDA ITEM 12 NOTIFICATION FROM THE BATON FIRE DEPARTMENT.
[9. Notification from Baton Rouge Fire Department: Assistant Chief Bryan Averett has been placed into a Provisional Appointment to Deputy Chief on July 11,2025, while BRFD Awaits Test Results.]
ASSISTANT CHIEF BRIAN EVERETT HAS BEEN PLACED INTO A PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT TO DEPUTY CHIEF ON JULY 11TH, 2025, WHILE THE BATON FIRE DEPARTMENT AWAITS TEST RESULTS.[02:20:03]
I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE THAT PROVISION. [OVERLAPPING]>> IT'S JUST A NOTIFICATION THAT HE SENT OVER.
>> THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE AN ACTUAL.
>> THERE'LL BE NO ACTION ON THAT ONE.
WE'LL RECEIVE THAT NOTIFICATION.
AGENDA ITEM 10, OF COURSE, WAS MOVED UP ON THE AGENDA.
TO ITEM 4. ACTUALLY, ITEMS 6 AND 5.
>> THERE WAS ONE THAN THE ONE YOU HAD THAT I HAD.
>> THAT WAS THE DEPUTY CHIEF WAIVER?
>> CORRECT. YES, SIR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATION FOR THE APPLICANTS TO TAKE THE DEPUTY CHIEF TEST WITH A WAIVER TO INCLUDE PROBATIONAL ASSISTANT CHIEF.
>> THE MOTION IS TO WAIVE THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY CHIEF.
>> FOR DEPUTY CHIEF. TO THOSE THAT QUALIFY.
>> DO YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THOSE APPLICATIONS, IS THAT THE SAME ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> THOSE ARE FOR APPLICATIONS DUE.
>> I PROBABLY WILL BE A SEPARATE MOTION.
>> WELL, I MAKE IT ONE BECAUSE OF THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M ACTUALLY LOST, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY TALKING TO.
>> WE EARLIER IN ANOTHER BOARD MEETING.
WE JUST POSTED FOR THIS EXAM, BUT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ASKED FOR A WAIVER WHERE PROBATIONAL ASSISTANT CHIEFS WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT CHIEF TEST, BUT I DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN IT.
WE POSTED IN EXCEPT GIVE THEM A TEST.
>> WE HAVE TO WRAP UP THE FACT.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO REPOST IT?
>> YOU ALL ALLOWED A WAIVER, AND THEN I POSTED THE JOB, BUT I DID NOT POST IT WITH THE WAIVER.
I HAD TO REPOST THE JOB WITH THE WAIVER, AND THOSE APPLICATIONS NEED TO BE ACCEPTED.
THE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AND THE TIMELINE IS DONE, BUT WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATIONS.
>> WHAT WE'RE WE'RE ACTUALLY RETROACTIVE.
>> DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS. HOW MANY APPLICATIONS ARE THERE?
>> FOUR APPLICATIONS. DO WE NEED TO SPELL THEM OUT?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RETROACTIVE.
IT'S LIKE TWO DIFFERENT POSTING PERIODS, ONE AND THEN ANOTHER ONE.
THE FIRST ONE WAS PRETTY MUCH VOIDED OUT, AND THE SECOND ONE IS GOOD BECAUSE IT WAS POSTED WITH THE WAIVER.
I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO WORD IT.
>> BUT WE ACTUALLY DON'T NEED TO GIVE A WAIVER AT ALL BECAUSE WE ALREADY DID.
>> WE ALREADY DID THE WAIVER, AND WE ACCEPTED YOU ALL APPROVED A WAIVER, BUT WHEN THE JOB WAS POSTED, IT WASN'T POSTED WITH THE WAIVER.
I WENT BACK AND POSTED IT WITH THE WAIVER.
>> WE ACTUALLY JUST NEED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATIONS THERE [LAUGHTER]
>> LET'S START AGAIN. LET'S GET A NEW ONE.
>> I'LL WITHDRAW THAT PREVIOUS MOTION.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR DEPUTY CHIEF.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR APPLICATIONS.
WE'RE NOT SPECIFYING WHAT THEY MEANT.
MY QUESTION WAS, DID WE NEED TO SPECIFY WHICH ONES THEY WERE?
>> DO WE NEED TO LIST THEM BY NAME OR NOT?
>> DO WE HAVE THE INFORMATION?
>> LET'S INCLUDE THAT, SO WE BE SURE ABOUT WHOSE APPLICATIONS WERE ACCEPTED.
>> STOP SOME OF THESE LAWSUITS.
>> THE APPLICATIONS TO BE ACCEPTED ARE FOR BRIAN EVERETT, SCOTT BELL, DERRICK JONES, AND LUKE NEWMAN.
FOR THE POSITION OF DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF.
>> NOW, WITH THAT THEN DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> OPPOSE NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> I THINK THAT CONCLUDES I IMMEDIATELY EXCEPT FOR.
>> MR. CHAIR, WILL YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
[02:25:02]
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND BY MR. LEMON THAT WE ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> I'M SURE THERE ARE NO OPPOSES.
>> I ALMOST MADE THE MOTION MYSELF.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.