All right, I'd like to call the January 19th, 2021 meeting of the Civil Service Commission
to order at 3 31.
First order of business is the introduction of guests.
All of our folks, I think that I see here are not guests, but the star of the star performers
for the day.
You're the talent.
So we'll introduce you later.
Is there anyone that I'm missing as far as guests?
Speak now.
Commissioner Ramsey, if I can just state one thing, one announcement for you.
Commissioner Lillian is unable to be with us at the last minute.
She had something that came up.
So basically we have Commissioner Ramsey as well as Commissioner Baines, who will be deciding
everything for today.
In regard to the appeals, we would need a unanimous vote between the both of them in
order for an appeal decision to be made.
And provided that they cannot agree unanimously, then we may have to adjourn that portion of
the appeal, that specific appeal to the next scheduled meeting.
Thank you.
Sorry, you already told me that, so I forgot to announce it.
So thank you, Stephanie.
That's okay.
Daryl, I'm going to step away just a minute.
I need to get something from my assistant that I need from the meeting.
Okay.
Give me one second.
Anybody know any clean jokes that we can tell?
And I'm trying to remember some that Sarah always share with us.
So the one that she told this morning, Stephanie?
Yes.
About the clam.
How did it go?
I don't remember.
Muscles.
What did, I'm going to go and mess it up.
I shouldn't have said anything.
Something about a clam with muscles.
Oh my goodness.
And it was one that she said about, something about peppermint.
I can't remember.
I'm a bad joke teller.
They're always good dad jokes.
All right, could you, could you back up and do a song and dance routine then?
I'll let Rachel handle that.
I'm going to say Chair, all I need is an audience.
That's all I need.
All right, here's John.
We're good.
John, we need to do one other thing.
Public comments.
According to Crystal, we don't have any filed.
That's correct.
And no, no callers, sir.
No callers.
Okay.
Thank you.
Now, John, we need to just, let's go ahead and take care of this business right now upfront.
On the agenda, if you look at the order of the agenda, the appeals are plugged in right
in the middle under subtitle or subheading G. Right?
Okay.
What I would propose, I would like to make a motion that we move items H, I, and J, or
if your numbers seven, eight, and nine prior to the appeals.
So we get the POAs out of the way, let the firemen off the hook in case they have to
go fix dinner or go on a call or something.
And then we'll do the appeals last.
I'd like to make that as a motion.
Okay.
I'll second.
Okay.
I guess we kind of know how it's going to vote, but let's say all in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
So that carries.
Good.
Thank you.
Next order of business is to approve the minutes from the November 16th meeting that were distributed
to us in our packet.
I would entertain a motion that we accept those minutes.
I move that we accept the minutes as presented.
Okay.
Did you see any corrections, additions?
I did not.
I did not see it.
Nor did I.
Okay.
I would entertain a motion, then we have a motion on the floor.
Let's all in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Minutes are approved.
Election to chair and vice chair.
Well you know what the obvious one would be is to make a Lillian, but she's not here.
Well I was going to check your temperature, Darrell, and see how you were doing, you know,
if you were interested in continuing or if you were wanting to transition.
I am perfectly fine continuing with this arduous task, although I don't want to feel like I'm
dominating it, so if any of the others, if the other two of you want to jump in, you
know, that's fine too, but I don't mind doing it, so.
Well, Darrell, if you don't mind, that way I'll, as my other, the other parts of my life
are kind of falling into place, I would like to leave it as is if you're okay.
I'm fine with that.
Okay, so I'll move that we have Darrell Ramsey as the chair and John Baines as vice chair,
is Lillian vice chair?
No, you're, I think you're vice chair.
That's correct.
Mr. Baines is vice chair.
Okay, well I'm going to, I'm going to recommend that Lillian be vice chair, how about that?
Okay.
I'll second that emotion, emotion.
Okay.
Any other discussion?
No.
All right, all in favor say aye.
Aye.
All right, motion carries.
Next item is the fire recruit eligibility list.
You have that in a packet.
I'll defer to fire, who's here for fire?
Okay.
I think this is working, can y'all hear me okay?
I can hear you fine.
Okay, good, because I finally got this video camera to work.
Okay.
Yes, we gave the test on Saturday, the ninth, and we had 288 people show up, 279 passed,
and we gave out 109 background packets to the people who scored 85 or above.
And the list that you see before you to be approved is how they finished.
There's a, if you look between 109 and 110, there's a bold line.
And that just denotes people above the line, we gave packets to people below the line have
not been given a packet as of yet.
Okay.
What was the reason for that captain?
Where we decided not to give everybody one?
Yes, sir.
That's a good question, in the past two years, we've only had about 35, 37 people show up.
And this year with so many, we're looking to hire in three spots.
And so per con for our main conferred contract, we have to take 15 to the physical agility.
So I just did kind of rough math, you know, from what I understand, this is my first rodeo
as a recruiter, but from what I understand, it takes about two for every one background
packet that you process, like say it takes 30 people to get 15, for example.
So we just figured that, you know, a good number would be 60 to 100 somewhere in that
ballpark and just chose 85 had it been, you know, had we only gotten 50 people, we would
have given out, you know, lower the number down to 80 or something like that.
We just without any quantifiable data to use prior to this, I just guessed that 85 to try
to get 100 people.
If we had to, the test is good for a year.
Yes, sir.
If we had to, you could go further down that list beyond below 85 at some other point,
correct?
For sure.
Yes, sir.
And it's quite possible we could go below that anyway.
You know, we've been, I gave them two weeks, which is pretty standard to turn in their
background packet.
So they have till 5pm on Friday.
And you know, we're trying to process the first, we've broken the background packet
process into group A and group B. 1 through 30 would be group A and then, you know, 31
through 60 would be group B. Just to process them faster, we're trying to speed up processing
time for, you know, a safer grant that we have.
So speed is a little bit of the essence.
So but if we only get, you know, as of right now, I've only gotten 15 of those 109 packets
back.
So it's quite possible by the end of the week, if we only get 10 more, I may, you know, I'm
probably sending an email out to everybody who made 84, then 83, then 82 and shoot those
out and say, you know, turn a packet in, it doesn't hurt to turn one in, it's just, you
know, with me and then having two other background guys, it's hard to, you know, process the
sheer volume with a high rate, you know, the high turnaround.
Okay.
Any other questions, John?
No, no, I was just curious as to the line of demarcation.
Okay, I would entertain a motion that we accept the fire recruit eligibility list.
So moved.
I'll second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Motion carries.
Next is the police recruit certification list.
Who's taking that one?
That's me.
Hello, Jason Colba.
I apologize for the wacky video, my laptop wouldn't play any sound for some reason.
So I'm having to do this on my phone.
We held our first civil service exam of the year also on January 9th.
We had 68 showed a test out of I think 223 registrations, 39 passed the exam.
And we're aware we still have seven names to process from our September list and that
list we have to work until March 6th.
So we're going to finish off our old list before we start on the new list and try and
do a hiring round for our July Academy.
This test wasn't as strong as our September test for some reason, it may be in the time
of the year because January's test last year was very similar to this one.
Okay.
Any questions?
You know what, Darrell, you know, I was looking at the demographics on the police test.
So Jason, can we go through those a little bit or was that another agenda item?
Sure.
Okay.
Let me see here.
Yeah, we also we also did the same.
Okay.
So we had a total of 68 to take the test.
Yes, sir.
And then we had four black males and three of the black males failed.
All of the black females failed.
Yes.
And three of the five Hispanic females failed.
So in reading the tea leaves, what did that what did that have to say?
Well, we don't know, you know, our September test, we administer the exact same test in
September.
And we had a much stronger candidate pool, I would say, I mean, we hired 11 off of that
September list, six of those being female, two black females, the rest white females,
and then we hired, you know, Hispanic male, we had a pretty good diverse mix on our new
Academy list.
Now, having said that, this is something that we've already discussed with Crystal Babcock.
And we're going to have another meeting with her and look at the testing company we use
because we're certainly open to trying a different exam.
So comparing comparing this January exam to the September, give me give me the give me
the feedback.
Let me pull up the demographics from September.
So September's we had 83 testers out of 177 registrations, okay, 58 passed.
I'll go over that the total but the testers that took the tests.
Well, there's 36 white males, three black males, zero Asian males and 18 Hispanic males
in September.
Okay.
On our female testers, we had 12 white females, seven black females, one Asian female and
six Hispanic females.
So the failures were 11 out of 36 white males, two of the three black males, six of the 18
Hispanic males failed, zero white females failed, two of the seven black females failed
and four of the six Hispanic females failed.
So the demographics look better in September.
Still maybe not great, but you know, like I said, it's one of those things that when
we discuss this with Crystal, you know, we can go back to the history a little bit of
the test we switched to, but there are other testing companies.
And so we were going to meet with her and look at some of the other testing companies
and see what their data is.
This testing company has a ton of data that shows that it's a non-discriminatory test.
And that's one of the reasons that we had to switch from our old exam is because that
company went out of business and we can't validate that exam.
So we switched to a company that's in use around DFW by other agencies.
Originally I used a different version of this company's test and the failure rate seemed
a little higher.
And so I asked around to other agencies again and the 201 version that we currently use,
you know, just from getting feedback from other agencies, the 201 was supposed to have
a little better rate on it.
So we switched to the 201 to give that a shot.
But having said that, I'm not joined at the hip by any of these tests and if we can find
one we think is better, I'm certainly open to using a different company.
Well, Jason, my knee jerk is this.
I don't want to hold up the proceedings for today, but it does seem to me that we need
to do a little deeper dive on the reason why we're not having higher test rates.
I'd be interested in seeing a little more information on the candidates themselves just
to see if the pool from which we've drawn kind of predetermined this result or if there
was something different.
So Chairman Ramsey, I don't know how to get out of this loop right now, but anyway, I
would like to kind of get a deeper dive on some of those demographics and have another
conversation.
So I don't know how that's possible, especially with, you know, if we're having to call a
meeting and you have to have two people there and that type of thing, or you can't have
two people, you know.
My thought would be to put that as an agenda item on a future meeting, perhaps one where
it's a relatively short meeting where we approve eligibility lists and nothing else, but then
I would hope that we could go ahead and fill and pass this today and approve it as we look
into the test, which I assume will be next September-ish.
Probably late June, either June 26th or July 10th.
The idea is to have the test right around the start of our academy so we can get it
put together, certified, and then work that list for the next academy for that six months.
COVID really threw everything off in 2020 quite a bit, and I suspect that that has something
to do with our applicant pool, too, because, you know, where we would normally do in the
area of 20 to 25 recruiting events in a year, we essentially couldn't do anything in 2020.
A big draw for us is the mega career fair at Fort Hood that we would do twice a year
where 4,000 or 5,000 soldiers would come through, and there's a huge diversity of soldiers that
would come through getting ready to transition out.
I signed up for their virtual event a few months ago, and I spent three hours standing
at a laptop and I had three people pop into my booth, so it's not the same as being there
in person.
So that definitely, you know, hurt us.
We're not able to get to the college campuses and all of that stuff, and these virtual events
haven't been very good, honestly, so, you know, hopefully we can kind of get through
this COVID stuff and get back to our better, you know, recruiting events, so time will
tell, I guess.
Jason, I got one more question, and then I'm going to get off the horse.
Last year was a pretty tough year for police relations in the community, and at least from
my perspective, there was just a lot of stuff going on.
Do you think that may have affected the recruiting?
Oh, absolutely, without a doubt.
Where we're seeing now, kind of the result of that is our lateral applications are really
starting to take off from the states where they're, you know, as a result of those things
that were happening, they're passing some really restrictive things where they're talking
about qualified immunity and all that stuff.
So we're getting quite a few calls from, you know, Illinois, California, Colorado.
Their cops are starting to bail out of those states, honestly, and they're looking to come
somewhere where they can work in a better environment.
So I think there's some of that, you know, in September, one of the females we hired
was a dispatcher for Cook County for Chicago, and that was a, she comes from a police family
and didn't want to, she wanted to get her daughter into a better living environment
and didn't want a police in that environment.
So she somehow came down to North Texas and tested with us, and she's in our academy now
now.
So it's definitely interesting.
But I think, I think people that want to be involved in public service are going to find
a way to do it.
And honestly, I think more Texas is probably the one of the very best areas in the country
for policing.
And so, you know, as time goes on, we'll see more of those candidates here rather than
other states.
Thank you, Jason, and Chairman Ramsey.
So if we can maybe make a motion to put that on a, on a subsequent agenda item, where we
can do a deeper dive on the demographics, because they seem to be a little, little less
desirable than I would like to see.
Sure.
I don't know that we need a motion.
I think we can just put it on as a note if, is that right, Stephanie?
Yes.
And we have a section at the end of the agenda where we discuss future meetings.
So that may be an opportunity to discuss it further.
Thank you for your indulgence.
I would entertain a motion that we accept the, what are we doing, the police recruit
list certification list.
John?
Yes, yes.
Your, is that a motion?
I'm still in the fall, please forgive me.
I move that we accept the police recruitment list as presented.
No laughing, Stephanie.
Okay.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
This is a, this is a Stephanie and Michael question.
We have a five recruit eligibility list and a police recruit certification list.
Somewhere in our recent past we had a discussion about eligibility versus certification.
Do we need to make any alteration in either of those titles?
I'm wondering if there's maybe some language in the different contracts that calls it something
different maybe?
That's correct.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Okay, at one point, so I just, I saw that and I thought maybe we need to ask the question
anyway.
Okay.
That being done, next is the POA position opportunity announcement for the fire driver
promotional exam.
Who's doing that one?
That's me.
Okay.
So we have the, you're going to see the POAs for fire driver, fire captain and fire battalion
chief and other separate agenda items.
Right.
They are, so the dates for our promotional exams are written in our meet and confer contract.
So that's where the, which are the first Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of March every year.
So that's where March 4th for fire driver, March 3rd for fire captain and March 2nd for
fire battalion chief come from.
They'll be on those respective dates at two o'clock, central fire station as we do every
year.
Then the promotional exam source material, the commission's already approved.
You did that, I believe in November.
So there they are, our registration deadlines, one week prior to the exams, that gives us
an opportunity to ensure we have the proper amount of tests and verify that any prerequisites
that are required for any of those positions are met prior to the testing date.
Okay.
Any questions?
John, do you have any?
No, I have no questions.
Okay.
I would entertain a motion that we approve the fire driver POA.
I make the motion that we approve the POAs presented.
All right.
Second?
So all in favor say aye.
Aye.
Okay, next is the fire captain.
I think probably anything, anything new to add?
No, sir.
Okay.
You kind of get them all together.
The dates and the source material are really the only things that are different on them.
You've already seen the source material and like I said, the dates are written into our
mean defer contract.
Okay.
Questions?
I move that we accept the POA for the fire captain promotional exam.
Second.
As presented.
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
And so that motion passes.
Next is the POA for the fire battalion chief.
I have nothing further to add, Dr. Andrew.
Is that the same day or the day before?
It's the day before.
The day for battalion chief is March 2nd.
Fire captain is March 3rd and fire driver is March 4th.
Okay.
I kept looking to make sure I was getting the right dates.
Okay.
I move that we accept the POA announcement for fire battalion chief promotional exam
as presented.
Second.
Any discussion?
No discussion.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
No one.
So we're all set.
Yeah.
John?
I'm on the meeting right now.
Thank you.
Sorry about that.
Let me disconnect the phone.
I did that before you came on.
So.
Okay.
Next item of business, going back on the agenda to item CSC 21011, are the appealed questions
from the police sergeant promotional exam.
So let me just a second to get my, change gears here.
Just a reminder, when we do the appeals, the person who is making the appeal will get a
chance to speak their, speak their, their argument, make their argument.
And there'll be a chance for questions from the commissioners.
There will be, ask for a police response.
Who's going to do the police responses?
That would be me, Michael Barron.
Okay.
And then questions there, then we'll, if I can remember, we will have a time where we
would ask for anyone to speak in opposition to the, to the appeal.
There are a couple of items that are, that have two appellants.
I would simply ask the appellants, if they're here with us, to present any new information
that hasn't been presented.
In other words, if you're the second presenter, you don't need to rehash everything that we've
already done.
But if you have new information that you'd like to add to that, we certainly want you
to do that.
That's, that's, that's your, your chance.
My philosophy on this has always been that you get a chance to air your concerns and
then we can take everything under consideration and then ultimately make a decision.
So first, I'll say this now, I'll probably say it again at the end, to all of the appellants,
thank you very, very much for taking the time out of your busy lives, lives to even study
for this exam, take the exam and do the appeals.
You may not like us when we get done because your appeal didn't get approved, but please
understand that we do truly appreciate the work that you have put into this and we'll
do our best to be fair to everyone concerned.
So that being said, is there anything else that we need to say, Stephanie or Crystal?
All right, now, first appeal is question number eight, and again, we have, electronically
we have all of the supporting materials.
So first appeal is by Sarah Keith, so Sarah, be sure to unmute yourself and you're on.
The appeal for question eight is based mainly in the fact that the grammatical structure
of the question does not allow the first options to be correct, and therefore the last answer
D cannot be all of the above because it's missing the word and, and that's the basis
of my argument, which is on my written appeal.
Questions for Officer Keith?
John, do you have any questions?
Well I'm looking at the, at the appeal here, and I have printed out all the appeals, but
as far as the source material, I do, I don't have that with me.
It's in a, it's in a Dropbox file.
Did you not get the Dropbox file?
I'll refer the email to you, Mr. Ramsey or Baines.
What I would, I agree that there's a grammatical issue, but in looking at the, in looking at
the source material, all three of those are listed, and I don't see, while giving, giving
a test sometimes does kind of fracture the grammatic, the grammar of an issue with all
three of those issues there, I don't, I don't see where that we could, that we need to make
a change, but police response?
Yes sir, what you just said is the, a summary of the police response, all three of those
are listed in the source material, none of them individually would be a correct answer.
Okay, John, that, that is found on the task force on page three.
Okay, I see it here.
Okay.
All right, okay.
Please forgive me everyone, I'm, I'm without my regular email system, I'm, we're having
a fight with Microsoft 365, and so I'm having to kind of go backwards into my emails, and
I miss this, so I apologize for that.
Okay, let's see if I can get there, sorry Sarah, okay, okay, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry,
sorry.
So Darryl, help me out here, which particular, which of the particular source materials are
we looking at here?
We're looking at the president's task force on 21st century policing, page three, pillar
four.
Page what now?
Three.
Okay.
Color four, and let's see.
Found it yesterday.
Okay, pillar four.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
To look at that short hash paragraph on the, on the right column.
Yes.
Page 17, pillar four.
Last sentence.
Law enforcement agencies.
Yes.
Okay.
So, Sarah, please forgive me for the, excuse me, Officer Key.
Please forgive me for asking the question again here, but your contention was that it
should be C rather than D?
Correct, because if you place any of those answers alone into the fill in the blank and
the nature of a fill in the blank is that it has to make sense when you insert it into
this sentence.
So if you insert any of those answers, A, B, or C into the, into the sentence, the only
one that grammatically makes sense is answer C. And if you were to choose answer D, you
would need to add the word and in order for it to grammatically make sense.
Each of those answers, A on its own, B on its own, would not make sense because it says
approaches for planning to crisis situations does not make sense.
Approaches for implementing to crisis situations does not make sense.
Approaches for responding to crisis situations does make sense.
And again, like I said, if you do all of the above, you need the word and inserted between
implementing and responding.
And the police response was what again, please?
That all three of those are listed in the source material and none of them individually
would be correct.
The way the question is written, if you, if C said and responding as it's quoted in the
text, that wouldn't make sense grammatically either.
But the option is only responding.
So inserted by itself C into that question, into that sentence would make sense and would
be correct.
>> Thank you for catching me up, I apologize.
So Daryl, are you waiting on me or are you going to make a recommendation?
>> I was kind of waiting on you on the questions for either police or officer Keith.
If you have other questions, let me, let me go ahead and do the other thing, which is
to ask if there's anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?
Not seeing anyone raising their hand.
Hi, John, it's back to you.
>> Okay, Chairman Ramsey, I think in comparing the question to the response, I think I'm
going to have to, to stay with the guide here and go with the answer as D.
>> So motion is to sustain the key.
>> Sustain the key.
>> All right.
I'll second that.
On favor, say aye.
>> Aye.
>> And the next one is 18, but I understand if I got the message correctly, Sara, I mean,
Officer Keith, that you're going to book for that one?
>> Yes, please.
>> Okay.
All right.
Sara and I talked a lot over the phone this summer.
You may not remember, but we spent a lot of time together.
All right, next is item 39, Travis, your opportunity to make your case.
>> Good afternoon.
>> How are you?
>> I'm well.
So at this time, I am going to remove my appeal on number 39.
>> All righty.
Next is item 53 and this is yours.
>> Yes.
Hi, this is Officer Jared Ray.
How are you guys?
>> Good.
Thank you.
>> All right, so on number 53, the reason why I was appealing it is I understand that
it says what always merits the designation, what got me whenever I was reading the test
question on the day of the test was all three of them listed as far as ABCD, out of zone
of safety for the chronological agent development stage, mentally or physically disabled, and
the company of others who could jeopardize your safety, all three of those were listed
out of the eight topics in the general order.
So with all of those listed, if we went to a call and we had someone that was, like it
says, out of the zone of safety for their age, they were mentally disabled, and the
company of others, we had someone that met all three of those criteria.
I believe that that person could be listed as a high-risk missing person and probably
should be, or else it's going to go back on the police officer, it's going to go on the
sergeant, it's going to go on the city, and it's just going to be a big deal.
So I believe that it could have been not none of the above, but it could have been all.
So had it been all of the above, I think it would have been a more fitting answer.
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
Questions?
John?
I need just a second, please.
Thank you.
Okay.
Have you found the source?
Yes, I did.
We're also working to get to where I can share my screen and pull up the source material
when we're referencing it, so it'll be just one second.
Okay.
So, Officer Ray, for the sake of those of us who might be chronologically challenged,
I'm going to ask you to repeat for me your understanding as to why D is incorrect.
Right.
So on General Order 315 for missing persons, it says in there that these examples alone,
and it gives a list of A through H, if you would like, I could read them to you.
These examples alone might not merit designation as a high-risk missing person.
I understand that.
I agree with that.
No.
And so whenever I read, "Out of zone of safety for their chronological age and development
stage," that's someone that may be intellectual disability.
They may be 15, but they're intellectually a two-year-old.
And then you have someone that's in the same person that's mentally or behavioral disabled,
and then that same person is in the company of others that could jeopardize the welfare.
They're with a bad group of people.
That's why I believe that it could be all of the above versus none of the above because,
again, it says these examples alone might not merit.
But I have all three of them listed on the test, and that's where, to me, it's confusing
as a question.
And the police response, again, was what, please?
Well, we haven't gotten there yet, so.
Okay.
But you have other questions for Jared?
Not really a question, but I was just going to emphasize a point once I heard the police
response.
Let's go and get the police response.
Yes, sir.
The question is, "What always merits?"
And there are two categories in the list that always merit, and it's A and B. And then all
the subsections, A through H, might merit.
Officer Behrends?
Yes, sir.
So here's what I'm looking at.
I see a question that says, "Which always merits designation as a high risk?"
And so the operative for me is the word "always."
And then you say A and B are both on the list for always?
If you look under the bold font, "high risk missing," A, missing as a result of abduction
by a stranger, B, missing under suspicious or unknown circumstances, such as when the
person is 13 years of age or younger.
Yes.
And everything below that might not merit designation.
In other words, same to me, as I ran through this, that if you're going to use as the stem
of the question, "which always merits designation as a high risk missing person," you should
list A, as a result of abduction by a stranger, B, missing under suspicious or unknown circumstances,
C, missing more than 30 days or less than 30 days at the discussion, D, reported missing
on four or more occasions, five, and on with good, those are the always's.
Your question says "always."
You don't have any of those on there.
And that's why none of the above is the correct answer.
I'm struggling with the transition and the use of the word "always."
And then it says, "high risk missing includes persons who are missing as a result of an
abduction by a stranger, missing under suspicious or unknown circumstances."
And then the unknown circumstances then enumerates A and B, and it goes through a listing there.
And then those other items would be the always.
So you got A, B, C, D, E, and M are all high risk missing persons.
And so then we come back to the question, which says, "which always merits designation
as a high risk missing person," that A and that B would warrant, and always, that's how
I'm reading it, "out of the zone of safety for their chronological age or mentally or
behaviorally disabled."
And also F. And also F, John.
Yes.
F is also verbatim, or answer C, which is F in the definitions.
Well, I don't know, am I allowed to speak again?
The way I read the question is, if they're missing as a result of an abduction, or if
they're under suspicious or unknown circumstances when they're 13 years of age or younger, those
are the two that always merits.
And then everything else is might merit, and it says these examples alone might not merit
designation.
Other questions, John?
I'm struggling.
I deal with the difficult language every day, and this one's a little challenging for me.
I agree with you.
Let me go ahead and finish, and then we'll get to discussion, unless you have other questions.
I do not.
It's just a statement.
All right.
Well, let's discuss, and then we can bring in the interested parties as we need to.
Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?
Seeing none, discussion, John, you and I?
I hate the question.
It's a very difficult question.
I don't personally like it.
The always versus might is kind of tacky, personally.
I would like to see us accept all through A, B, and C. I think there's simply explanations
of an all of an always, is my personal feeling.
Well, yeah, those three are always.
That's what I'm saying.
Those three are always.
I mean, according to the definition, but I think those three that are listed as answers
are simply explanations of the B portion of what is considered to be always.
I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the might and always, and I'm sure that probably
others have that same distinction issue.
So what is your suggestion, Mr. Chair?
I will move that we accept A, B, and C.
I'll second that motion.
Okay.
Now we can discuss it.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
Is there anything else that needs to be discussed about it?
Not for me.
I just found it a very challenging question.
We have very challenging options there.
Okay.
So the motion on the floor is to accept A, B, and C. All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
With a wink, wink, nod, nod, Michael, one more look at that question.
Yes, sir.
And so I guess just to be clear, Mr. Ramsey, so I guess you're granting that appeal, correct
on that one?
That's correct.
In a manner of speaking, yes.
Okay.
Next is Item 57, Travis.
Okay, so just a second, I'm trying to get to the, okay, so on Number 57, it had to do
with who's responsible for pursuits, who has responsibility during vehicle pursuits according
to the men's police department policies.
The 307.3.2 vehicle pursuits, which is on page 3, states that if any officer other than
a supervisor determines the risk of the pursuit outweigh the safety of the involved officers
and those in the community, the officer may direct the pursuit to be terminated.
So I felt that the answer should have been all of the above, if my memory serves me correctly.
Answer A was the primary officer.
Answer B was the secondary officer.
Answer C was the sergeant, or answer D was all of the above.
Question, field supervisor, officer initiating, secondary officer, all of the above.
And I felt that answer D was correct, all of the above, have responsibility in vehicle
pursuits.
Look, if you look at 307.3.2, well, the secondary pursuit vehicle is not mentioned in your argument,
so how do you justify that as being a correct answer?
Okay.
Well, because, like I said, in the first part of 307.3.2, it says if any officer other than
a supervisor, so that would be your primary officer and your secondary officer, and even
the third officer, they were available if it says any officer.
That's not exclusive to a sergeant or a supervisor.
All right, point me again to the sentence that you just quoted.
I'm sorry, what was your question?
Where is the point you just quoted about any officer, where do you see that?
Mr. Ramsey, I pulled it up on the screen, sir.
Under 307.3.2, in the second paragraph, when a supervisor directs a pursuit to be terminated,
the officer will immediately terminate the pursuit.
Second sentence, if any officer other than a supervisor determines the risk of the pursuit,
outweigh the safety of the involved officers and those in the community, the officer may
direct the pursuit to be terminated.
So any other officer would be the primary officer, secondary officer, and so on, whomever
was involved, other than just a supervisor or a sergeant.
Okay, now there's a separate section 307.6, which specifically speaks about supervisory
control and responsibilities, okay?
So we had that 307.2, but this is 307.6, so.
And their responsibility, that would be in D, subsection D.
Okay, I see that.
Any response to that, Mr. Nicholas, officer Nicholas?
Yes, sir.
Do you have any response to Mr. Baines' comment, question?
It looks like the question is really addressing the supervisory control and not just control
of a termination in general, is that, does that strike a chord, Mr. Nicholas, officer
Nicholas?
Right, yes, sir.
Yeah, I see that.
But again.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
So again, as it reads in 307.32, prior to that, though, it says any officer.
So again, it's not just, I understand that is a supervisor's role or responsibility,
but 307.3.2 says any officer's responsibility.
Now, let's go back to the question.
Do you have a copy of the question there?
I was looking for it, but I do not have the actual test question in front of me.
So I'm looking at something here that says question 57.
Yeah, I have.
And then down at the bottom, underneath A, B, C, and D, it says 307.6, supervisory control.
Were you aware of this reference?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
So it looks like they're wanting you to base your answer on 307.6 rather than 307.2, which
is my head is off to you for being able to quote that, but it looks like they're mainly
focusing on the supervisory responsibility.
John, I'm going to jump in there and go to Michael, because I'm not sure that that question
has 307.6 listed on the test.
307.6 is for our benefit to know where the question actually came from.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
That is correct.
So he wouldn't have known the difference between 307.6 and 307.2.
Yes.
He would have just known chapter three.
That would have been his only cue was chapter three.
Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
You're absolutely correct.
The question ends after D, all of the above.
That's all that anything that they would have access to on the test would have been above
D, all of the above.
Yeah.
That doesn't necessarily change the nature of your question, John, but what it does,
it's not something that would have been that specific that Travis would have seen.
Well, and that was what I was trying to get at.
See, I'm looking at this recapitulation of question 57, but everything that I see here
was not available to the test takers.
Yes, officer Nicholas, you had a question or a comment?
Yes, sir.
The last sentence of question 57 also states these are some of the responsibilities of whom.
So these are some responsibilities of all the officers.
It doesn't say specifically to whom, it just says some of the responsibilities of whom.
So let's go back to these four bullet points, okay?
So directing the pursuit be terminated if in their judgment it is not justified to continue.
Bullet two, ensuring the proper radio channel is being used.
Bullet three, exercising management and control of the pursuit, even if not engaged in it.
And the last bullet, ensuring that no more than the required law enforcement vehicles
are involved in the pursuit, all of that is found in which subset?
Is it point two or point six?
All of those in totality are under 307.6.
But if you take out the first one, directing the pursuit be terminated if in their judgment
it is not justified to continue is also listed under 307.3.2.
Okay.
And then in the conclusion, after those responsibilities are listed, the direction it asks or the statement
is these are some of the responsibilities of blank.
So these are some of the responsibilities of 307.32 as well as 307.6.
So let's go now back to the source material and see if we could find these four bullet
points.
If our technical person can get us to that screen, please.
Okay so I see point D is the first bullet.
Point E, excuse me, the radio contact is F, exercising management, that's point B. And
then the last bullet point, going back, there we go, there we are.
That's point C. So all four of those are found under 307.6.
So let's go back to 307.2 and let's see how many of those are there, please.
And Mr. Baines, if I may, please, please, for the sake of time, there's only one that's
listed on 307.3.2 and that's the first directing the pursuit be terminated if in their judgment
it is not justified to continue.
That is the only one that will be found there, the other three are not.
But it's not listed as a bullet point though, is it?
I think it's in the body.
No sir, no, it's not listed as a bullet point, you're correct.
Okay, so now we've had this discussion before about if you're gonna go to a source material,
it looks like the bulk of those bullet points are gonna be under point six rather than under
point two.
Yes.
Would you agree?
Yes.
Okay, okay, okay, so there are, it looks like to me, we're gonna have to stay with the key.
All right, well, hang on, we gotta get the, we got a couple of things to do and then we
can discuss it.
Okay.
That's fine.
First response.
Michael?
Yes, sir.
If we can scroll, throw 307.4.3 up.
307.4.3, primary is in pursuit, okay.
It lists all the responsibilities of the primary unit.
And none of those bullet points in this question appear in that list.
Okay.
Okay, and if we can go down just a little bit more to 307.4.4, and there's the secondary
pursuit vehicle responsibilities, and none of the answer or none of the information in
the question are in those bullet points either.
So the responsibilities are spelled out, the supervisor responsibilities are spelled out,
they have all of those bullet points in them.
The secondary and primary units have none of those items.
Right.
There's nothing in 307.4.4 that says that they would do any of those things, right?
Right.
Is that what you're saying?
Okay.
Yes, sir.
So, that makes A, the preferred answer?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Any other questions for police?
Just to comment, Mr. Nicholas, thank you for your scholarship and your hard work.
I think I'm going to have to defer, though, to the bulk of those points, which are directly
related to the supervisor, rather than to the other individuals that are involved in
the decision-making.
Okay.
Hang on one more second there, John.
Yes, sir.
Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?
Seeing none, hearing none, now.
John?
Yes.
I think we're on the same page, so why don't you just make a motion?
I make the motion that we sustain the key.
I'll second that.
I agree with your comments to Officer Nicholas, and if all the source material, everything
that was brought in is the source material, there was no outside source material involved
in this question.
All right, next is item 58, Officer Weatherford, there he is.
Hello.
Magically appears.
Only when I'm needed.
All right, I am appealing number 8, I'm sorry, 58.
The material on that is general order 401, specifically 401.1.
My appeal on that is that the reasoning is that there is no correct answer, and I'll
read to you the question and the answers, the question is what is bias-based policing?
The answers are A, a reliance on actual or perceived characteristics as the basis for
providing law enforcement service or enforcement, B, using protected characteristics with credible
information to connect a person to a specific unlawful incident, C is neither A nor B, and
D is both A and B. The correct answer according to the key was A, a reliance on actual or
perceived characters as the basis for providing law enforcement service or enforcement.
My reason for the appeal is that the full definition is actually lacking several important
words.
The full definition says an inappropriate reliance on an actual or perceived characteristic
such as race, ethnicity, protected, you know, all the protected characteristics, and then
the last part says as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement.
Both the words inappropriate and differing are missing from the answer A.
Differing is in there, isn't it?
No, it's not.
Differing, differing, well answer A says differing law enforcement.
Oh, I guess it is.
That must be in there.
I'm sorry.
I probably wrote that down wrong.
But I know inappropriate is not in there.
Inappropriate is not in there, yes.
Any questions for the appellant?
I need just a second, Daryl, thank you.
Okay.
Can you listen to the police response while you're doing that?
Please, I would love to.
Michael, you're on.
Yes, sir.
Providing differing police service or enforcement based on real or perceived characteristics
is the driving focus of what the answer says in A. Just because the word inappropriate
is omitted in that sentence doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
It cannot be B. B is speaking to connecting a person to a crime, and that doesn't appear
in the definition anywhere.
I feel like A is the best answer without question.
So a reliance versus an inappropriate reliance are the same thing?
I mean, I can read the whole sentence if you'd like, but...
No, I hear what you're saying, but what they're getting at is anything for providing differing
law enforcement service, whether it's appropriate or inappropriate.
I don't think omitting the word inappropriate changes the meaning of the sentence.
In this context.
Thank you so much.
So I can go out and do something, and if it's appropriate, I'm fine.
But if it's inappropriate, I'm arrested and put in jail.
So that's a pretty big difference in my mind.
That's a really big word, unless you can explain to me how it is the same without the word
inappropriate in there, which would then make C the correct answer, because it's neither
A or B.
The way I read it is if you rely on any characteristic to provide differing law enforcement service,
that is inappropriate.
That's wrong.
And that's what the question is going at.
That's what the definition is going after, is providing different law enforcement service
based on a characteristic.
Chairman Ramsey, I could go either way on that one.
That one is I could go with a reliance or an inappropriate reliance.
To me, you could get away with either one.
I don't know, get away is not the right word to talk about police questions, but I could
select either one.
You are absolutely right.
I think I have in here that it's another one of those questions that I think you need to
look at real carefully, but what is bias-based policing?
It's a reliance on actual or perceived characteristics, but if it's bias-based, it's also based on
inappropriate.
I mean, the bias-based is sort of a generic description, and I see where John is coming
from.
It could be both.
It could be either way.
But I think inappropriate is the one that's going to get someone in bigger trouble than
appropriate as far as accusations of bias, so I think that's a pretty significant word
myself that's left out of the question.
I do, too, but as a reader of the question, I could go with an answer that says an inappropriate
reliance or a reliance.
To me, I could go with either one, so that makes it fair game for something different
than the key.
I did answer C, and the reason, of course, was because it didn't read to me that it was
inappropriate.
It wasn't, you know, it didn't seem like, obviously, basing things on people's characteristics.
I mean, we literally have to do that all the time because of descriptions of people, things
like that, but that's kind of how I read it more, without the inappropriate word in there.
And I would argue that we do different kinds of policing for different kinds of communities,
you know, for certain types of genders and things like that, you know, we do treat people
differently, have different rules for different things.
You know, we get a female to search a female, I mean, just based on different characteristics,
we do do that, so I think the word inappropriate is very important.
John, what do you make a motion?
Do you want me to make a motion?
I think we're going to make different motions.
Okay, well, my motion would be to...
I don't know, I don't think the question is faulty, but I think it's complex.
The answer is complex, and, you know, there's a lot of subjectivity that you have to deal
with here, but if you're talking about going to the material, and they had the source material
which said an inappropriate reliance was there.
However, if you rely on actual or perceived characteristics, that can also be bias-based
policing, because you're relying on it.
So I'm struggling there with...
Well, I think they chose the wrong word to leave out to make that an answer.
The test takers do that from time to time, you know, they're going to try to give you
the answer and leave out a word or two.
Except this is the right answer, but the source material does say an inappropriate definitions
of bias-based policing is, one of them is, an inappropriate reliance, which would make
C the correct answer for the question.
That would be my motion.
Okay, are you going to make that motion?
If I can, I guess, can I step away from the chair and make a motion?
Sure.
Okay.
I'll second that motion.
And then we'll discuss it a little bit more.
Okay.
Motion made, seconded to accept answer C rather than A. Now we can discuss it.
Sherman Ramsey, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with A and with, if you're going
to do that, you couldn't use B.
Right?
So I guess I'll have to second your motion to make it neither A nor B.
Okay.
I'd like to confirm one thing, if it's okay.
Sure.
Let me take a look here.
Your echo's on, Stephanie.
And I'm sorry, I don't know how I can speak.
Jared accidentally hit his microphone button.
So the decision is that you're only going to accept C.
So for those test takers who chose D, that would no longer be the correct answer.
Is that what I'm hearing based on the motion?
A is the key answer.
Okay.
A is the key.
So you're going to accept A and C as an answer, right?
But C is really the correct answer.
Okay.
So as it's listed with the word "inappropriate" left out, at least that's the motion on the
floor.
It hasn't actually been passed officially.
So that makes C the right answer.
So what about A?
Is C the right answer or the best answer?
Well, C would be the right answer.
Or the best answer because of the omission of the word "inappropriate."
Well, as I poorly stated earlier, I could accept A.
But I can also accept C.
Well, let me ask you a question.
I don't have the question right in front of me, but you're saying you could accept A or
C. I mean, is the question worded that you have, it has to be only one right answer,
right?
I mean, you can't have two unless it says, like, all the above or something, either one
is the right answer.
It can't be this or that, right?
Yes.
It's either A, which is the key answer, with the word "inappropriate" left out, then B,
which is not an issue, it is definitely not an answer, then the other two are neither
A and B, or the other answer is both A and B.
So if A is an incorrect statement, then C, which is neither A or B, would be the correct
response.
If A is the correct answer, even without appropriate, then that is the correct answer.
Here's the way I take that.
If I'm going to police with bias, then I'm relying on something I actually see or something
that I perceive, if I'm going to be biased.
And then, if you want to go and say, well, it doesn't include that word "inappropriate,"
then that would make it the wrong answer.
And so you would go to neither A nor B. So that's why I say I'm still stuck, Darrell,
with A and C, for me personally, but I realize we have more business to proceed with, and
so I don't want to stay here longer than we should.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Ramsey.
If you think the answer is as written, left out something significant, then in a sense
is the question itself just a bad question all around, and therefore I think under your
rules, everybody gets credit for it?
Or I'm just trying to make it easy for you and trying to come to a decision on whether
to grant the appeal or deny it.
Is it so bad that the question itself is deficient, and therefore I think under the rules, everyone
should get credit and deficient because it left out an important word?
Would you be willing to go that way, Darrell?
Could we amend that and say, "Accept A and C"?
Well, you can't change the answer.
You can't change the answer.
No, no, no.
But what I'm saying is that on our amendment, I mean, on our decision, my motion was to
accept C as the correct answer.
Could we amend that amendment and say, "Accept A and C"?
That's what I was thinking.
It doesn't taste very good, but I'll live with it.
Your options under the rules are to either sustain the answer key, disqualify the answer
key, or disqualify the test question.
May I have a question from the floor?
Yes, sir.
If the question can be such that there could be two correct answers, then I think it would
be best to just omit the question itself altogether.
Well, hang on, I'm going to get back to your comment.
Stephanie, we're changing the answer key, and we can do that.
We've done that numerous times by accepting A and C.
Yes, you have done it.
Which that way, we don't have to eliminate the question, because eliminating the question
penalizes everyone who took the test, and we don't want to do that.
Is that a question, or is that a holding your pen in an odd way?
That was a question.
Okay.
That's what you just said was what I was going to ask, because if you're saying the question
just goes away, then that negatively affects the people who-
Everybody.
Yeah.
Everybody.
Right.
Yeah, we don't want to eliminate the question, but we're not for this particular test.
We're not going to take it away from this particular test.
I could live with accepting A and C. That would be amending my motion to include A and
C. John, will you second that amended motion to accept A and C?
John will second that amended motion.
Okay.
I don't think that's needed, right, Michael, Stephanie, because we can change the key to
accept more answers.
So all right.
Yes.
Now, that being said, John, is there any other discussion that we need to do on this one?
No.
I'm all in favor of that amended motion.
So all in favor of accepting A and C, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
None.
All right.
Michael?
Yes, sir.
I don't want to see that question again.
No, no, no.
Yeah.
I'm clear on that question.
But I need to go back because some of the discussion on 58 caused me to have a question
on 53.
The vote was to accept A, B, and C. The key to answer was B. So how do we proceed with
that?
Anybody that put A or C in there gets a correct answer.
So it's A, B, or C. Any of those answers are correct.
So the people that answered in D.
They're out.
Okay.
Thank you.
Claire?
Good. Now, you're muted, there you go.
Can you clarify what Lieutenant Barron's just asked for 53?
What was -- The motion was to accept A, B, and C.
So if you're accepting A, B, and C, why would all of the above not be accepted if you're
-- if A, B, and C are correct and then all of the above is an option?
Question 53 is none of the above.
Oh, okay.
Never mind.
Then I was confused.
Sorry.
It's A, B, and C. Okay.
Now, next question 59, Mr. Weatherford again.
You're back.
I am back.
Hopefully I can make this one smoother for you guys.
59 is general order again, it's 401, specifically 401.5 bias-based policing.
I believe the answers are misrepresented in the material.
I believe answers B and C are inclusive to A and they should not be listed as separate
options and I'll read the questions.
The question is what are the supervisory responsibilities pertaining to bias-based policing?
The correct answer is keyed as D, all of the above, A says supervisors shall monitor those
individuals under their command for compliance with this order and shall handle any alleged
or observed violations, B is supervisors shall discuss and document the discussions, C is
supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violation, and of
course C is all of the above.
My argument here is that A is actually the header and B and C are bullet points listed
under that header.
A says that they should handle any alleged or observed violation and I would argue that
B and C is to discuss and document discussions and then investigate any violations should
be included in handling the investigations listed in A.
Okay, John do you have questions?
Can we go to the source material in 401.5 please?
The number A is the header there right under the bolder things and super responsibilities.
So small a is the same as b and the test questions?
And C are included as bullets under the header?
Let me ask the question Paul and I have the response so I know what it is, but B and C
are also correct answers, then the obvious correct answer is D. You can't separate any
of the three, right?
I see what you're saying but I think A should also either be an answer or it's a bad question
because there's all of the bullet points in there that aren't included also, but we're
going to include two bullet points under the header, it doesn't make sense to me.
But they are, the ones that are included are all correct.
So all the above would be the appropriate answer.
Think about that one for a second while I ask Barron's to address.
Yes sir, all three of those are included in the source material as the responsibilities
of a supervisor regardless of how they're broken up or bulleted, they're all in that
section as responsibilities.
John, questions?
No questions.
Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?
Seeing none, John, motion?
I have a motion that we maintain the key.
I'll second that.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Sustain the key.
Next is question 75.
I'm actually going to withdraw my appeal.
Okay, consider it done.
Thank you, Officer Johnson.
Next is item 85, there are two of Sarah Keith and Travis Nicholas.
Sarah, I don't know if it's appropriate or inappropriate, but ladies first.
Sorry, that was a bad joke.
I apologize.
That's all right.
Before everybody's reference, I'll go ahead and read the question.
It stated, an individual's car breaks down in the middle of the road at night.
The automobile is just over the crest of a hill and is not immediately visible by traffic
moving in that lane.
The individual abandons the car in total disregard for the safety of others.
He does not turn on the automobile's warning flasher and makes no effort to signal other
motorists.
Another motorist drives over the hill and rams the rear of the disabled car.
The motorist is seriously injured, which is the most serious offense committed by the
operator of the disabled vehicle.
The options were A, reckless driving, B, illegal parking, C, aggravated assault, or D, criminal
mischief.
The first basis for the argument for my appeal would be under the source material that we
were given.
The source material included Texas Penal Code, including Section 2201, which is assault,
Section 2204, injury to a child, Section 3103, theft, Section 32.47, fraudulent destruction,
removal, or consummate of writing, and Chapter 49, intoxication and alcoholic beverage offenses.
Aggravated assault is Section 2202, which was not included in our source material.
The second basis for the appeal of this question is that there are too many assumptions that
must be made based on the scenario.
We don't know why the vehicle was disabled.
We don't know the type of roadway that this was on.
Both the reason why the vehicle was disabled could give explanation as to why the warning
hazards were not used and could give explanation as to why the vehicle wasn't moved out of
the roadway.
The other assumption is that why did he not make any attempt to notify or warn other drivers?
We don't know if he had a cell phone.
We assume most people do, but we don't know if he did.
We assume his level of intelligence that might give him ability to, or his level of comfort
in walking to a nearby house, he may not feel safe doing so.
There's really nothing in there that says why he didn't notify anybody.
Because there's too many things that need to be assumed for an officer to be able to
conclude that the action was reckless.
You don't even meet the elements of the offense for aggravated assault, which requires that
the state of mind for the suspect would have to be reckless.
And that would be the basis of my appeal.
Okay, thank you.
Nicholas?
Do you have anything to add to that?
Yes, sir.
I was assuming that this was coming from Section 22.01 for assault, and also included in there.
I'll just read it out.
So assault is A, a person commits an offense if the person, one, intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse.
Number two, intentionally, or knowingly, threatens another with imminent bodily injury.
So I think this question negates to determine if the operator who left his vehicle, he
didn't threaten another person with any kind of imminent danger or, you know, bodily injury.
So there was no, we're missing a threat.
Okay.
So are you saying that aggravated assault has to include a threat?
Is that what you're saying, Officer Nicholas?
One second.
So from my understanding, the assault itself has to have the threat.
The aggravated is including a weapon, which makes the assault an aggravated assault.
So without a threat, as the penal code states, we don't even have a threat with the scenario
that we're presented with.
There's no threat.
May we go to the source material, please?
Okay.
Can we get, Chairman Ramsey, is it too early to ask for the police response?
No, I was giving you time to read.
Yes, sir.
There is sufficient information contained in this question to direct you to the correct
answer.
It is the middle of the night.
So you know that it's dark.
It's just over the crest of the hill and not immediately visible by traffic.
And that person abandons the vehicle in total disregard for the safety of others.
That to me, I think to any reasonable person would be considered reckless.
The actions of that person leaving the car in the roadway constitutes the assault.
They recklessly caused the bodily injury when another car crashed into them.
There is no requirement for a threat to be present.
There's no and after that sentence, intentionally knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury
to another, including the person's spouse.
That's the definition of assault.
The aggravated assault comes in with the presence of serious bodily injury or the use or threatened
use of a deadly weapon.
Even without the aggravated assault being in the source material, the best answer is
still assault.
One of the objections was that aggravated assault is 2201.
It's not in the source material, but neither are any of those other choices.
Illegal parking is in the transportation code.
Reckless driving is a section of the penal code that's not in the source material, as
well as criminal misdemeanor.
I think assault is the best answer, which is the key answer.
I didn't have the source material.
Does the source material, and this may be something we have to dig for, did the source
material specifically say Texas Penal Code 22.01 and 22.02, or did it say Texas Penal
Code 20, Chapter 22?
It says 22.01.
Assault is in 2201.
Aggravated assault is 2202.
I'm sorry.
In the source material that they were studying, 2202 is not included.
Correct?
Correct.
Okay.
Can we go back to 2201 again, please?
Sure.
So, what I'm looking for, I'm not sure what John's looking for.
In 2201, Lieutenant Barron's, where does it specifically say aggravated assault?
It does not.
To have an aggravated assault, you have to have an assault as defined by 2201 and serious
bodily injury or the use of a deadly weapon.
The aggravated is just a higher level of assault.
It's a qualifier of the level of assault.
I'm having difficulty making that stretch or that connection.
Can you explain that again for me, please?
Aggravated, what makes an aggravated versus just assault?
An aggravated assault is you have to have an assault first under 2201.
To make it aggravated, a deadly weapon has to be used or threatened to be used, or there
has to be serious bodily injury.
All right.
So, in using a vehicle, how do you get from 2201 to having a vehicle, making it aggravated?
I'm stretching for that connection.
The vehicle, it's the conduct of the operator of the vehicle leaving the vehicle in the
roadway that caused the injury.
That is the assault.
I can see that.
Okay?
Where it gets to be aggravated is because there was serious bodily injury, and that
information is in the question.
So let's go back to the question again.
We're just going to walk through it a little bit here because there are some holes in this
description.
It says an individual's car breaks down in the middle of the road at night.
The automobile is just over the crest of a hill and is not immediately visible by traffic
moving in that lane.
So the individual abandons the car, and then this is the part that's, I don't know, somebody's
making this determination in total disregard for the safety of others.
I don't know, if I'm, on a trip from here to Austin, I'm driving with my 24s on my SUV.
I have a blowout, and I have to pull over to the side of the road, and there's no light
out there at all.
I'm on the, I mean, I didn't intend for it to break down, but I can't say.
I did it to intentionally hurt someone.
I had a breakdown.
So I'm just, I'm struggling with a person that has a breakdown in a difficult situation
making that, what's the word, the modifier, aggravated assault.
Well and to respond to that briefly is, you said yourself, you pulled to the side of the
road.
Yes.
You didn't leave your car in the middle of the road.
Right.
Without a shoulder, there's overpasses where there is nowhere to pull over.
And that's not stated in the question, what type of roadway that this was on.
It does say the middle of the road.
If you have a breakdown, if my car just stops, then you don't really have a choice.
Yeah.
If your axle falls out of your car, you can't move it to the shoulder.
So I'm not fighting you, Lieutenant Barron, I'm not fighting you, I'm just, I'm just struggling
with the example.
The next sentence in the description, in the scenario that they're giving, says they didn't
turn on the warning flashers or make no effort to signal other motorists by using something
like flares or flashlights or anything like that.
That's the next sentence in the descriptor, which would continue to describe just leaving
it in the middle of the road.
I mean, if you were then trying by using flashers and flares and/or flares, at least you were
trying to warn people and that might take the aggravated assault out of it, even though
it happened and there was serious injury.
But it's in the description of the question, of the situation in the question.
So if your axle fell out and you didn't do anything about it, didn't turn on your flashers,
didn't do any flares or try to signal to somebody from the side of the road or anything, what
would be the most serious charge that could be elicited that might be aggravated assault?
>> May I add one point, please?
>> Yes.
Travis?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Sit down.
I'll get back to you next.
I saw your hand.
Go ahead, Travis.
>> So as Lieutenant Baron stated that the other three answers were not a part of the
source material, then SOAT 2 is true with aggravated assault.
That's not a part of the material as well because the material starts at 22.01, which
is just assault.
So you have to have 22.02 to get to your aggravated assault.
So 22.02 is not source material as well.
>> Sarah, thank you.
>> That was the same point I was going to make, is that if the other answers aren't
valid because they weren't source material penal code, then aggravated assault isn't
valid either because it's not source material penal code.
The specific 22.01 was listed, 22.02 was not listed.
They did list an entire Chapter 49, which they could have done an entire Chapter 22,
but they didn't.
They specifically listed 22.01, not 22.01 and 22.02, and not 22.02 by itself.
>> So both of you are saying that given what you've just said, B, illegal parking is the
correct answer.
Is that correct?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Correct.
>> That's the answer that I selected, but if none of them are source material, then
so true as with aggravated assault, that's not source material either, but the answer
that I selected was illegal parking.
>> Lieutenant Barron, is it true then that none of these are listed in 22.01, none of
these answers?
>> Aggravated assault is in 22.02.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Assault is in 22.01.
The aggravated is just the level of the assault.
I would submit that assault is still the best answer of whatever category it is, and assault
is in 22.01.
You have to have an assault first to have an aggravated assault.
>> But you have to have a weapon, though.
You don't have to have a weapon?
>> No, sir.
Can we pull up 22.02?
>> But the way you have aggravated assault listed is separated the same way that sexual
assault differentiates from regular assault.
Each of them have their own section.
Sexual assault is its own section, aggravated assault is its own section, and it goes into
the specifics of what makes an aggravated assault an aggravated assault.
It's a completely different charge.
It's not the same way that theft is its own section with different levels of theft that
make it Class C, B, A, and so on all the way up to higher levels of felony.
Those are all within the same section of theft.
But for aggravated assault and assault, they are their own sections.
>> Can we scroll down to 22.02?
>> Well, if it's not source material, if it's not listed in the source material that we
approved, then it's a moot point.
>> Yes, sir.
>> I mean, I know what you -- I mean, I understand.
The term aggravated then makes it a different level and makes it a wrong answer.
So assault -- so if you're looking at these and you're thinking, "Oh, well, it would be
an assault, but it's not an aggravated assault," so that's a wrong answer, which one of these
are the right answer as a test taker, you'd look at it that way.
So, you know, if aggravated -- the word aggravated nullifies answer C, because if it were just
assault, it would be the right answer.
Aggravated assault brings in a whole different set of factors into it.
So if aggravated assault is not the correct answer, which is the most serious offense
minus aggravated assault, Mr. Barron -- Lieutenant Barron's.
>> I would still say that assault is the best answer.
>> But aggravated assault is different from assault.
>> You have to have an assault to have had an aggravated assault.
>> But you don't have to have an aggravated assault.
See, that brings it to a whole new level as an answer.
An assault and an aggravated assault are not the same thing.
You can have an assault without it being aggravated assault, correct?
>> That is correct.
And that's still a higher charge than any of those others.
>> You're making life difficult for us.
The company is making life difficult for us.
>> It's difficult to write questions out of a penal code, because everything is going
to be a hypothetical.
>> John, my thought -- my thought on this, and I guess I'll make this in form of a motion,
if I may, is that we accept B and C. That way, if the test takers thought, oh, it's
an assault, it might not be aggravated, but it's an assault, so we'll put that one as
the worst -- but also, if you thought aggravated assault -- it's not aggravated, so therefore
it's got to be one of the other three.
>> I'm not sure which one is the worst of the other three.
>> So --
>> My motion would be to accept B and C.
>> Okay.
I will second that motion, and then we'll have some discussion.
>> Okay.
Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?
Okay.
Discuss.
>> Like you were saying, Lieutenant Behrens, you know, you're dealing with a lot of hypotheticals,
and I'm just remembering my experience on the highway between here in Austin and getting
stranded, and I don't remember turning my lights on because in the middle of the night
I didn't really want to draw a lot of attention to myself.
I don't carry a weapon, so I'm defenseless, and so I'm in the middle of nowhere with a
flat tire, and so you kind of go into survival mode, and so I'm trying to -- I'm trying not
to rely exclusively on my experience, and I'm also -- apparently I'm very limited in
my understanding of the word assault, so I'll have to defer to your experience, but I thought
you had to have a weapon in order for it to go up from just assault to aggravated assault,
so apparently my understanding is tarnished, limited.
So I would go with your two, Daryl, B and C.
Okay, I'm not going to change, but I do have a question.
Maybe it's just for me to know.
Would a vehicle be -- could a vehicle be considered a weapon?
If that question is for me, then yes, certainly.
Okay.
I don't know if anybody wants to answer it, but I -- so it could -- so there is the presence
of a weapon, technically, because there's a vehicle there that's in the way.
A wall could be a weapon if you put it out in front of a road and somebody drove into
it, correct?
A what?
A wall, or a pole, or anything that you would -- a sewing machine that you could drive into
could be a weapon, but that's a little far-fetched.
So --
Officer Keith has a question, a comment.
Yes, ma'am.
I think one thing that we learn in our training is that anything has to be evaluated on the
way that it's used, and if you use a vehicle as a weapon, you would have to drive it at
somebody or direct it to do something.
That car, there by itself, was not being used as a weapon.
Okay.
No intention for the vehicle to hurt anybody.
Okay.
Is that a consensus agreement?
Okay.
So, the motion on the floor is to accept B and C. There's no other -- there was no other
discussion, all in favor of the motion, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
B and C. Next is question 88, and there's two there, Jared and Trattis.
Jared, are you still there with us?
Yes, sir, I'm here.
We'll let you go first since you haven't been here in a while.
Okay.
So, would you like me to read the question?
We have the question -- we have the question in front of us, so I don't think it's necessary.
Okay.
So, on this particular question, after reading the excerpt, it asks, "Jack may properly be
charged with -- I believe injury to a child and criminally negligent homicide would be
the appropriate charges," plural, "for the simple fact of injury to a child is for serious
bodily injury or death, and the culpable mental state is going to be intentionally, knowingly
or recklessly or with criminal negligence, by act of intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual or disabled individual, serious bodily injury,
serious mental deficiency, impairment or injury, or bottle injury, or likewise, on the other,
for criminal negligent homicide, the person is acting with criminal negligence, okay,
or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the
result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.
The result must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes
a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under
all circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
So on that particular one, I had put, "Criminal negligent homicide," because I believe that
that actually would be the offense, because again, it's saying what may he be charged
with, he may be charged with either offense.
>> I think it's negligent either way.
>> Okay.
I'll hold my question for just one second.
Travis, you want to add anything to that?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Mine is pretty much on the same line as Officer Ray.
What I would add to that is the criminal negligence is more along the lines that they -- Jack
and/or Jill did not -- they neglected the need of the child.
So it wasn't, you know, and therefore, that's why I select the criminal negligence, because
they neglected whatever it was that, you know, the child needed.
In this case, I think it was saying get into the emergency room.
Then also, my second point is that I think when I discussed this with Lieutenant Barron's
initially, we had a conversation about it.
And I think the response was, and I'm paraphrasing that, injury to a child is a higher charge
than criminal negligence homicide, which I do agree.
But as a, you know, as a patrol officer, I'm not necessarily responsible for knowing, at
the time I'm charging somebody, which charge is going to be higher or, you know, less than
the other.
We're not required to make that determination.
We're required to make a charge that fits the situation, and that will more than likely,
for lack of better words, stick.
So just by saying that injury to a child is a higher charge should be, you know, the correct
answer.
I don't -- you know, we've never been trained that stick with the higher charge.
Okay, let's do that first.
>> I'm sorry, sir, did you ask for the Department of Response?
>> I did.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Injury to a child is specifically written to protect child victims.
That charge in the situation as described is a first-degree felony.
Criminally negligent homicide is a state jail felony, which is a much lower charge.
And it doesn't have a specific reference to protecting a child or an at-risk population.
One thing that Officer Nicholas mentioned is that as a patrol officer, this is a test
to be a sergeant, and sergeants are expected to know the proper charges to file.
>> Okay.
Questions, John, of any other parties involved?
So in the source material, did we mainly reference the injury to a child or criminally negligent
homicide?
>> 2204, I'm sorry, was that question for me?
>> For whomever, I'm sorry.
>> I'll have a last edit, 2204 is in the source material, and criminally negligent homicide
is in Chapter 19, which is not.
>> So criminally negligent homicide was not part of the source material?
>> It was not.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Can I add something, Mr. Gerard Ray?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Well, Lieutenant Barron's just mentioned something a second ago that it was a first
degree or second degree felony, however, with injury to a child, it's also a state jail
felony whenever the person acts with criminal negligence and by omission.
So by definition, it should be either answer.
Mr. Ray, this is John Baines.
I was going to ask you, so when given the study materials, the injury to a child was
specifically given, but criminally negligent homicide, because of your knowledge and profession,
you knew that that was an option, but it was not directly in the source materials, was
it not?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> And that's why I'd pick the other one on aggravated assault versus illegal parking.
>> All right.
So you know, the question I was going to ask you a minute ago, I'm going to come back and
ask you, of the four choices --
>> Yes, sir.
>> Which is the best answer, best?
>> I don't think it's the best answer, because it's asking what he may be charged with.
>> Which one is the best answer of those four?
>> I don't think there is one.
If injury to a child is a felony and a criminally negligent homicide is a state, I'm assuming
that that would make it a federal-type -- I mean --
>> No, sir.
They're both going to be state, and the way that I actually see this is they're both done
with criminal negligence, so they're both going to be a state jail felony.
They did not intentionally or knowingly kill this kid.
>> So, Travis, I'll ask you the same question.
Which do you think is the best answer?
To get the biggest bang for your buck, so to speak.
>> Right.
So, again, and we kind of counsel back and forth on this, and, you know, the question
states which one may he be charged with, and, again, that's -- I mean, I feel that it was
a criminal negligent homicide.
And then also, if I may, with all due respect, when Lieutenant Manz and I sat in office and
discussed this same question, Lieutenant Manz looked it up to find out which one had the
higher charge on the computer.
So I -- at the same time, if I'm a patrol officer -- and that's simply what I do.
Anytime I charge anybody with any offense, I get back and I do my report, and I look
it up on, you know, to make sure I'm doing the right offense, and that's exactly what
we did, and that's how we knew which one was the higher charge, injured to a child, because
we looked it up on the computer to determine which one was the higher charge.
>> John, any thoughts?
>> My thoughts are -- my hat's off to the ladies and gentlemen that do this for a living.
I would have thought that criminally negligent homicide had a higher penal code than injury
to a child.
I'm learning something all the time, so I didn't realize that was the more -- the more
punitive of the charges.
But I'm stuck, though, because in the source material, the source material was injured
to a child and not criminally negligent homicide, so I'm almost wanting to just stick with that,
but I hadn't decided yet.
Is where I am, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay.
Time to decide.
>> Okay.
I'm going to -- I'm going to sustain the key, is my motion.
>> I'll second it.
I can live with that.
I can see both ways.
Travis, Jared, I hope you understand.
I can see both ways.
I see your point, but it's what we've got in front of us, and I think that that's the
problem.
So I will -- I will second your motion.
So all in favor of sustaining the key, say, "Aye."
>> Aye.
>> Next is question 92.
Paul.
Where's Paul?
There he is.
>> Sorry, I'm unmuted now, I think.
We're on to question 92, is that correct?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Let me turn my volume up here.
All right.
Question 92 states the correct answer -- let me read the scenario.
So it's Roy was an intoxicated -- Roy was intoxicated beyond the legal limit.
He failed to bring his vehicle to a stop.
The vehicle crashed through the window of a retail store.
Mary, a customer in the store, was struck by the vehicle and suffered a broken arm.
Which of the following best describes the offense which Roy, the driver of the vehicle,
has committed?
My argument is that the source material is not included in any of these answers.
So they're all incorrect.
The first answer is A, terroristic threat, B, intoxication, assault, and criminal mischief,
C, reckless damage and destruction, and intoxication, assault, and D, assault and burglary.
And the argument is that C is said to be the correct answer by the key.
Reckless damage and destruction, however, is part of penal code chapter 28, and that
is not listed in the source material.
Say that one more time, I'm sorry.
Sure.
I'm sorry?
You're saying C is not a part of the material?
C includes reckless damage and destruction and intoxication, assault.
Reckless damage and destruction is chapter 28 of the penal code.
It is not included in the source material.
But intoxication, assault, is with chapter 49.
Okay.
I answered intoxication, assault, and criminal mischief, which is B, which that's the same
thing.
One is in the source material, and one is not.
Could we actually see the source material that was referenced, please, for this question?
While she's getting that up, can we get the police response?
Certainly.
Yes, sir.
And he is correct.
Intoxication, assault, appear in both, or two of the choices, the only two that are
arguably correct, and they each contain intoxication, assault, which is out of the source material,
and then they contain, one of them contains criminal mischief, and one of them contains
reckless damage and destruction.
Neither one of those are included in the chapters of the source material.
In my response, I said that there is a base of knowledge that's assumed by the test takers.
They have to have a minimum of three years to sit for the test.
Criminal mischief and reckless damage are offenses that we deal with regularly, and
it would be presumed the officers would know the difference in the culpable mental state
in those two charges.
So in other words, the position is that B and C are both correct?
No, my position would be C is the only correct answer.
So I'm sorry, I missed something in your enumeration of your position.
Could you repeat that for me, please?
And I apologize, I missed it.
Now, both B and C include intoxication, assault.
Yes.
The only difference between them is one of them has criminal mischief, and one of them
has reckless damage or destruction.
Neither one of those components are contained in the source material.
However, those are offenses that patrol officers deal with regularly, and should know the difference
between them.
But here's the conundrum, they're not in the source material.
We screwed up on the source material, and meet and confer, as very specifically said,
it has to be in the source material.
So we can't assume common knowledge.
So the question then becomes, what do we do?
If none of the answers are correct and in the source material, then what do we do?
I'll defer to Stephanie, but I think that may be a situation where you have to throw
the question out altogether.
It doesn't seem appropriate.
I agree with you, Mr. Ramsey, that they should be testing, asking a question on something
that's not in the test material.
So.
Can I say one more thing?
Yes.
And I guess it's to Latone Barron's argument about the couple woman in the state.
I went with criminal mischief, because I do use that one a lot, we rarely use the other
one because reckless damage and destruction is negligent.
Somebody left their car parked and it rolled into somebody else's car or whatever.
The criminal mischief, he knew he was intoxicated and he went and drove anyway, so I don't think
that that would qualify as negligent.
We don't arrest people on negligent DWI's.
I would agree with that, Austin.
Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?
Okay.
John.
Yes.
It's up to us.
My proposal would be to accept BNC.
That's where I was headed.
So I'll make a motion that we accept BNC.
I'll second that.
Okay.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Okay, Michael, that's another one, just so you know.
Next is 97, Derek, you're in.
Okay.
Can you hear me?
Go ahead, Jared.
Okay.
I was having a hard time hearing you.
Okay.
Hold on.
Okay.
So on this one here, we keep talking about stuff that's not in the source material, enticing
a child is not in the source material.
Saying that, I'm trying to get into where I was, but in this question, and we deal with
this for the big majority of our jobs on a day to day basis is the CCP Chapter 1403.
So whenever a peace officer is to make an arrest outside his or her jurisdiction for
certain offenses committed in the officer's presence or view, then it asks for which following
offenses may peace officers lawfully make a warrantless arrest.
That is going to be an on view arrest without a warrant outside of his jurisdiction.
So that's going to be outside of Denton, Texas.
The first one is enticing a child, which is not part of the source material.
It's not a felony, it's a Class B offense under Section 2504, unless the actor intended
to commit a felony, which we don't know.
D is disorderly conduct, which is going to fall under the Chapter 42.
Because under CCP 1403, it's going to mention for a felony, Chapter 42, 49, or a breach
of the peace and decent exposure is going to be a breach of the peace.
So I believe both of those could fall under that.
And the key answer was all of the above D, which I don't believe it is, because enticing
a child, again, is not a felony on the face value of that offense.
So put yourself in this situation.
You're driving down the street and let's just use San Antonio, far from our jurisdiction.
It's going to be kind of hard to see an offense enticing a child whenever it really has to
do with a custody battle between a parent or a guardian.
But you would see disorderly conduct or indecent exposure.
Indecent exposure is someone commits an offense that they expose his anus or part of his genitals
with an attempt to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of a person and is reckless about whether
or not someone else is going to be present and be offended by it.
So I don't believe the answer is D. And it could be either B or C.
>> Chairman Ramsey, do we want to do the police response before we go to the source material?
>> Paul, do you have anything to add to that?
>> What did they say, Paul?
>> I'm sorry.
Did you say Paul?
>> Yes, I did.
You're one of the appellants.
So you get to talk now.
>> Hang on one second.
You're having a hard time.
Can you repeat that?
>> You're one of the appellants.
Do you have anything to add?
>> Yes, sir.
My appeal is similar but slightly different.
My appeal says that the question is faulty and there's actually no correct answer.
It should be eliminated.
Based this on the fact that none of this is in the source material, enticing a child as
Jared already said is not in the source material, disorderly conduct.
My argument on that is yes, it's listed in the CCP, but it is not listed in the source
material.
If we were going to list every single thing that's listed in the CCP or in any other code
that references some other code, you know, including traffic code and everything else
that's referenced in all the penal codes and other CCP and other study material, then we'd
have hundreds of things that aren't listed in the source material but were able to be
tested on.
And then C, indecent exposure is not in the source material.
It is not listed as a breach of peace because the breaches of peace are listed in Chapter
42.
And it is also a Class B, not a felony.
My argument on enticing a child is the same.
It's not a felony unless it's, you know, that was the intent, which we don't have anything
to prove that and it's not source material.
Okay.
I was looking for the felony part of it, and you're saying that's in Chapter 42 and 49,
right?
49.
49 is intoxication assault.
Specifically, sales of felony.
Yeah, it does say a felony.
So you can't arrest on a misdemeanor.
Correct.
Well, unless it is disorderly conduct.
I'm sorry.
Say that again.
We were both talking.
It's listed in Chapter 42, which is what the CCP says, but my argument with the answer
being disorderly conduct as B is disorderly conduct in and of itself is not listed in
the source material.
It is only referenced in CCP 1403.
And if we're going to reference everything and include it in the source material, that's
going to be hundreds of codes, including all the traffic offenses.
Okay.
Thank you.
Lieutenant Behrens.
Yes, sir.
The question is not about what section or enticing a child disorderly conduct or indecent
closure on.
The question is specifically about when can a peace officer outside his jurisdiction make
an arrest?
And I believe that one of the appellants mentioned that C, B and C are both correct because they
are both breaches of the peace.
A is also correct because there is a felony level enticing a child.
So all of the above is the correct answer.
I think Officer Weatherford mentioned breach of the peace, something not being listed as
a breach of the peace.
There are no statutes.
There are no offenses that are specifically listed as a breach of the peace.
The breach of the peace comes in from case law.
So D, all of the above is the correct answer.
John, questions?
I was just trying to go down.
If you could scroll down, please.
Thank you.
The Lieutenant Barron's mentioned that there's no, that indecent exposure is a breach of
the peace.
However, if you look at Chapter 42, it mentions that these are breaches of peace in the first
couple of sentences and indecent exposure is not included in Chapter 42.
Just to clarify, enticing a child has a felony level.
I didn't say it was a breach of the peace.
I was talking about indecent exposure.
Alright, John, questions?
I'm still on delay right now, just a second, please.
Let me ask the audience, is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the offense,
to the appeal?
It's been a long afternoon.
Is this a felony or a misdemeanor?
Crystal, I can't see everybody, but I assume you can if you can.
No, you can't because you're sharing their screen.
Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition, speak up?
Sarah, you just came up on the screen.
Do you want to speak?
Has there been a motion for what question?
I'm just asking if you'd like to speak in opposition to the appeal.
I do have a question, Chairman.
Yes, sir.
It's a question of the department.
So there's this question that has been enumerated and it says we're referencing Article 14.03,
authorizing a peace officer to make an arrest outside of his or her jurisdiction for certain
offenses committed in the officer's presence or view.
For which of the following offenses may peace officers lawfully make a warrantless arrest
when outside their jurisdiction?
So how many of these are listed in 14.03, Lieutenant Barons?
There's no specific, I'd have to look it up, but I don't think there's a specific offense
that are listed in 14.03 that says you may arrest for this specific offense.
So help me here.
So how would an officer or a test taker know that these three items would all constitute
a justification for an arrest?
How do you get there?
They have to know what the level of offenses are and what constitutes a breach of the peace.
But that wasn't part of the source material, though?
The 14.03 is in the source material, yes.
Right, but these items weren't listed there in the source material.
No, but what it does say is that for a felony, a violation of Chapter 42 or 49, or a breach
of the peace, it presumes that you have some knowledge of the penal code.
So was 42 and 49 a part of the source material?
49 is, yes.
42, I don't think it is.
And in 49, which of those three items are listed there, please?
None of those are in 49.
49 is intoxication, grabbing intoxication assault, and DWI offensives.
Thank you, thank you, Officer Barron, Lieutenant Barron.
John, what are you thinking?
Oh, there's a disconnect here.
And so I'm trying to -- how do we rectify this situation, or is it rectifiable?
Stephanie and Michael, I'm going to come back to you.
I think in this particular case, it requires -- the question itself requires information
that while it should be known, should be, we can't assume that it is, and the material
that was listed in the source material does not give us an opportunity to answer this
question.
Therefore, as much as I hate to do it, I think we need to throw this question out.
We have that option, Commissioner.
Michael, do you have any input?
Yeah, I'd also just caution you that if we talk about source material a lot, that something's
not in the source material, but you shouldn't be giving credit to an answer if it's not
in the source material either.
I mean, you may -- you can't kind of have it both ways.
I was just a little concerned on the last question.
I may have misunderstood it, the one about intoxication, where I think you gave credit
to B and C because intoxication assault was one of the parts, but then there was another
part that was criminal mischief and reckless.
And I thought I heard you say those weren't in the source materials, but you were giving
credit if you picked either one of those, which seemed a little contradictory when you
talk about the source material.
Maybe I misunderstood it, but I --
I think my problem with this question as opposed to the one you're referencing -- Sarah, I
see your hand, I'll get to you -- is the fact that none of the answers that are listed on
the test are listed in the source material, none of them, and the other one, at least
some of them were, so we could accept the ones that were and the ones that weren't.
But in this particular case, Texas Code 1403 doesn't list any of the answers that are on
the test.
They're all in 42 and 49, or 42 and -- 49, there's none in 42, none in 42, 42 wasn't
given as source material.
So the material wasn't presented, and the other one that was presented, some of the
answers weren't presented.
I don't know what we do with this question.
I mean, I could understand -- None of the answers were mentioned in the
source material.
That was a distinction I saw, too, Michael.
And I understand the lieutenant's argument that 1403, I think it just cites that, so
I don't know that then that means that the source material has to include things that
are cited in something else.
But ultimately, it's for the commission to decide what you think is the fair and just
decision.
So I support whatever you ultimately decide to do, I support that.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sarah, go ahead.
I would just oppose throwing the question out, because if the answer was chosen factually
correct, then you're penalizing somebody who answered the question factually by throwing
the question out, instead of accepting all of the answers.
Okay, thank you.
Can I add something?
Sure.
So this is Jared Wray.
As far as enticing a child, it's not part of that literature, where, again, disorderly
conduct is, because it is listed under 1403, under Chapter 42.
Which is, in essence, a secondary source, because in 14 you've got to go to 42, but
you also can go to 49.
You're going to get yourself in a real basket of hurt if we start saying all of the references
to all of the other sections in a particular section are valid source material.
We're looking at that whole big thick Texas code, and while you probably should know it,
if they want to test you on it, then they've got to bring the whole thing to the commission
for approval under source material.
I agree.
I know where you're coming from.
And Sarah, you know, you haven't been here for 15 years, whatever, years.
I hate, I mean, it hurts to even have to suggest throwing a question out, because that hurts
everybody.
Those who got it right and those who got it wrong, because everything, everything means
counseling.
So I'm with you.
I understand where you're coming from.
Chairman Ramsey.
May I make a motion that we accept all the answers, please?
The question specifically says for which of the following offenses may peace officers
lawfully make a warrantless arrest when outside of their jurisdiction?
The preferred answer would be all of the above, but here would be my question with that, John.
I think that that certainly is a is an alternative.
I'll ask this question to the lieutenant if it is indeed all of these are A, B, and C
all felonies?
No.
That was not the answer I was hoping for.
It's true.
I understand.
I'm with you.
But wasn't the answer I was hoping you were going to give me.
They are all either felonies or breaches of the peace?
Does that help?
Well, doesn't 1403 specifically say felonies?
Or a breach of the peace?
Where does it say breach of the peace?
The last line.
Last line where?
On the department note there.
Yeah.
Yeah, but I need to see it in 14 because that's the source material.
Yes, sir.
I mean, I didn't read the whole thing.
I'll be honest.
Bearing my soul in front of everybody.
I didn't read the whole thing.
1403A, number one, again, persons found in suspicious places and under
circumstances showed that such persons have been guilty of some felonies.
Travis, where are you again?
Give me an explanation.
1403A, number one.
It's actually 1403D.
D?
D is in David.
Well, D is in David.
No, it's A as an atom.
It's listed under there that number one, it's in the last sentence.
Violation of Title IX, Chapter 42, penal code, breach of the peace, options under section
49.02, penal code, so on and so forth.
A1?
Yeah.
I don't see that, breach of the peace.
It's in the next last line of A1, John.
I see it.
I see it now.
All right.
I'll second your motion to accept all the answers.
All right.
So all in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Okay.
I like that better than throwing the question out.
I don't like it, but I like it better than throwing the question out.
Oh, excuse me.
That was an editorial comment.
Please take that.
You didn't hear me say that, folks.
All right.
Sarah, you get the last word here on number 100.
Okay.
For everybody's reference, question 100 stated, Denton PD General Orders Chapter 3, the location,
direction of travel, and estimated speed of the suspect's vehicle, the description of
the suspect's vehicle, including the license plate number, if known, the number of occupants
and identity or description, the weather, road, and traffic conditions.
The question asked, these are examples of option A was the suspect, or these are examples
of A, the suspect, B, primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities, C, secondary pursuit vehicle
responsibilities, and D, all of the above.
The answer key said that B, primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities was the correct answer.
My argument was that C, these are examples of secondary pursuit vehicle responsibilities.
The reason for that being was the question itself did not state how many vehicles were
involved in the pursuit or at what point in the pursuit the question was being asked.
Based on the available answer options, primary pursuit and secondary pursuit vehicle, you
have to assume that there is a primary vehicle, primary pursuit vehicle, and a secondary pursuit
vehicle involved in the pursuit.
The general order that was in the source material that is my reference states, the primary pursuing
officer should as soon as practicable, sorry, relinquish the responsibility of broadcasting
the progress of the pursuit to an officer in a secondary pursuit vehicle.
It also states, included in that is that they should, and when you have a general order,
it's important to note that there's a difference between can or should.
And if it says should, then that is what is best practice.
And if it's best practice, then that's the best answer for the secondary pursuit vehicle
to take over those responsibilities.
If there was only one, if there was only a primary pursuing vehicle, then obviously it
would be their responsibility.
But when you give an answer option of a secondary pursuit vehicle, then that would be the best
option, that would be the best answer because it's the safest answer.
John, do you have questions?
Let's see.
Let's go to the actual general orders, chapter three.
Let's take a look at it, please.
So let's find these four bullet points, okay, or excuse me, not the bullet points, but let's
find A, B, E, and F. Let's find those.
So the location, direction is A. B, the description of the suspect's vehicle, including license
plate number, if known, E, the number of occupants, and identify, excuse me, an identity or description,
and lastly, F, and these are all under the primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities.
So it's clearly listed there under 307.4.3.
So Officer Keith, why would you think that it would be secondary pursuit vehicle responsibilities?
Is that listed there as well?
Yeah, if you can look up to 300.7.4.3.
Let's go there, please.
And you can see where it says the primary pursuing officer should, as soon as practicable,
relinquish the responsibility of broadcasting the progress of the pursuit to an officer
in a secondary pursuit vehicle.
What was the reference again?
I don't think we're on your reference because we're still on the primary pursuit here on
the screen.
Right.
That's in there, right?
We're gonna scroll down.
Right?
Sarah?
What?
307.4.3, correct?
Right.
Okay.
John, it's right there.
It's at the very top.
Okay.
The initial pursuing officer will be designated as the primary pursuit vehicle and will be
responsible for the conduct of the pursuit unless they are unable to remain reasonably
close to the suspect's vehicle.
The primary responsibility of the officer initiating the pursuit is the apprehension
of the suspect without unreasonable danger to themselves or others.
The primary pursuing officer should notify the communications dispatcher commencing with
a request for priority radio traffic that a vehicle pursuit has been initiated and as
soon as practicable, provide information including but not limited to and then, let's see here.
This is the part down here under H, the third line where it says the primary pursuing officer
should.
I'm sorry.
I'm not--
Right after--
Okay.
I see it.
Okay.
It says the primary pursuing officer should, as soon as practicable, relinquish the responsibility
of broadcasting the progress of the pursuit to an officer in a secondary pursuit vehicle
or to air support joining the pursuit to minimize distractions and allow the primary pursuing
officer to concentrate foremost on safe pursuit tactics.
So why do you say this relates to secondary pursuit responsibilities?
Because it's saying right there that it's the responsibility of the primary pursuit
vehicle to relinquish those responsibilities to the secondary pursuit vehicle.
The primary pursuit vehicle is supposed to concentrate solely on driving so that they're
not having to drive a car and talk on the radio at the same time to air all of this
updated information.
That's the way the policy is written and that's the way we practice it is that once your secondary
pursuit vehicle arrives, you are not talking on the radio whatsoever, you focus on driving.
The secondary pursuit vehicle can back off a little bit and they can be looking around
for the traffic conditions and things like that that may be hazardous to the pursuit
and they can be talking on the radio to advise dispatch of all of that.
And even further, if you look down into in that same primary pursuit vehicle 307.4.3
until relieved by a secondary pursuing officer, that means that a secondary pursuit vehicle
is assumed to be dispatched or already on scene for any pursuit and that is our common
practice is that anytime a pursuit is initiated, there will be a secondary pursuit vehicle
involved at some point, unless it's terminated before they arrive.
And even further, in the secondary pursuit vehicle responsibilities 307.4.4, it states
that they are responsible for broadcasting the progress of the pursuit, updating non or
critical information and providing changes in the pursuit.
The best answer is that a secondary pursuit vehicle will be involved.
That is one of the options that the test gives and if that is an option, then that is the
best option.
Could you scroll up just a little bit Stephanie, I want to go back up to the preface of those
enumerations.
So here we are here, it says primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities, and then A through
H all relate to the responsibilities of the primary vehicle.
And then once they're relieved, then they become the responsibility of the secondary.
But in looking at this description, this is the primary pursuit vehicles responsibilities.
You go back to the question and it says, these are examples of, and to me it looks like it's
the primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities.
They become the secondary vehicles responsibility once that secondary vehicle comes on the scene,
but initially it's the responsibility of the primary.
Go ahead, Sarah.
But you can frequently have two officers arrive on scene and there is automatically a primary
and a secondary, and you may have a vehicle stop where the vehicle stops and then decides
to take off and your backup's already there, two vehicles automatically in the pursuit.
It's not always a single vehicle involved in a pursuit until the secondary gets there.
The question doesn't say in a vehicle pursuit where only the primary vehicle is involved.
Okay, it does not say that.
It does not say that.
What I'm reading though is that if those are the primaries and then once a secondary comes
in, those responsibilities transfer to the second, but preliminarily they become the
responsibility of the primary.
But it would be wrong to say if the secondary vehicle is an option, it would be wrong to
say that it's not their responsibility because it is.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
But if you look at the question, it's specifically saying these are the responsibilities of the
primary and then once the secondary comes, they become the responsibility of the secondary.
So it depends on at what point of the pursuit that that question is being asked.
That's correct.
But primarily though, their responsibility of the primary.
That's how I'm reading it.
I don't want to argue with you.
I'm just enumerating what I see as my position.
Police response.
Yes, sir.
They just described very eloquently the primary responsibilities are listed, specifically
those for A, B, E, and F are in there.
If you look at the secondary unit responsibilities, none of those are in there.
The closest you could get is that the secondary unit is once they come into play, they're
responsible for updating the progress of the pursuit and that's the only part that you
could even remotely say is similar to A, B, E, and F are nowhere in the secondary unit
responsibilities.
Question of police, John.
I have no more questions.
Okay.
Thank you, Officer Keith, for the dialogue.
Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?
Seeing none, John, it's up to us.
I'm going to sustain the key, Mr. Chair.
Second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Okay.
Now, we'll go back over those, just the answers for bookkeeping purposes, but ladies and gentlemen,
I said this to you earlier, I'll say it again, I'll say it every time.
Every time we do this, I say it, I'm sorry if you've heard it before, I apologize, but
I appreciate and I think all of us as citizens of Denton appreciate the fact that you took
time out of your schedules, time out of doing fun things when you're not working in order
to study this material and try to better yourself, and most of all, that means trying to better
us as a community.
You've taken it on the chin a lot in the last nine months to a year, and I think you've
done an admirable job in what you do for us as a community.
I certainly wouldn't want to do what you do because when I want to run the other way,
your job is to run to it, and that says a lot.
It says a lot about you, and for that, I am, and I think I speak for many of the citizens,
hopefully all of the citizens of Denton, to say we appreciate and we thank you for your
willingness to do that for us so that we don't have to do it, and for you trying to make
yourself better and make us a better community.
So I know you're probably all walking away going, "Well, I didn't get my appeal approved,"
but nevertheless, know that there is a heartfelt thank you for all that you do, both in your
daily work and in taking the time to study this material and become a better officer
and do a better job for all of us, so thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Thank you for all you do every day and above and beyond what you normally do, so thank
you very much for that.
That being said, can we go back over the crystal, I don't know if you've been keeping them or
Stephanie's been keeping them, and just quickly run down the results?
Absolutely.
So question eight, we're sustaining the key.
Question 18 was withdrawn.
Question 39 was withdrawn.
Question 53, accept A, B, and C. Question 57, sustain the key.
Question 58, accept A and C. Question 59, sustain the key.
Question 75 was withdrawn.
Question 85, accept B as in boy and C. Question 88, sustain the key.
Question 92, accept B as in boy and C. Question 97, accept all answers.
And question 100, sustain the key.
Okay, thank you, I think our notes are the same.
So next item of business on the agenda is to, where is it, on the other page, talk about
the meeting schedule, where we go from here.
Yes, the city secretary's office has requested that we approve our meeting schedule for the
year of 2021, prior to COVID, we were meeting the fourth Wednesday of the month.
Most of the time, because we also have to check the availability of the room, even though
we're not meeting in person, they do still have to set up and they need that room to
set up to broadcast this.
So most of the time, we could still meet that fourth Wednesday of the month.
There are a couple of times that we would need to move to either Thursday or Friday.
But if you would like, we could go ahead and move forward with setting our schedule as
the fourth Wednesday of the month, and then we could address the dates that we need to
as they come up.
I'm fine with that.
John?
I'm okay with that as well.
And then once our new vice chair comes in, she can provide her input as well.
And then we can move them with appropriate notice.
Correct.
So if there's a conflict on a Wednesday, we can change it and move forward.
So let's go ahead and do that.
Okay.
And they do need an action item for this.
So we will need a motion in a second.
Okay.
I also moved that we would have the fourth Wednesday of the month for our civil service
meetings.
Second.
All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
No opposition.
Okay.
If there's nothing else, I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting at 637.
Thanks all to everyone.
Happy new year.
And say so moved while you're talking.
I'll be the same.
Say so moved.
So moved.
Second.
Okay to say aye.
We are closed.
We are adjourned.
Yes, I agree.
Thank you all.
One second.
Okay.
One second.
Okay.