WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:15.280
 All right, I'd like to call the January 19th, 2021 meeting of the Civil Service Commission

00:00:15.280 --> 00:00:20.520
 to order at 3 31.

00:00:20.520 --> 00:00:27.360
 First order of business is the introduction of guests.

00:00:27.360 --> 00:00:36.720
 All of our folks, I think that I see here are not guests, but the star of the star performers

00:00:36.720 --> 00:00:37.720
 for the day.

00:00:37.720 --> 00:00:38.720
 You're the talent.

00:00:38.720 --> 00:00:42.100
 So we'll introduce you later.

00:00:42.100 --> 00:00:47.560
 Is there anyone that I'm missing as far as guests?

00:00:47.560 --> 00:00:48.560
 Speak now.

00:00:48.560 --> 00:00:54.840
 Commissioner Ramsey, if I can just state one thing, one announcement for you.

00:00:54.840 --> 00:00:58.080
 Commissioner Lillian is unable to be with us at the last minute.

00:00:58.080 --> 00:01:00.720
 She had something that came up.

00:01:00.720 --> 00:01:07.880
 So basically we have Commissioner Ramsey as well as Commissioner Baines, who will be deciding

00:01:07.880 --> 00:01:09.600
 everything for today.

00:01:09.600 --> 00:01:14.840
 In regard to the appeals, we would need a unanimous vote between the both of them in

00:01:14.840 --> 00:01:19.240
 order for an appeal decision to be made.

00:01:19.240 --> 00:01:26.020
 And provided that they cannot agree unanimously, then we may have to adjourn that portion of

00:01:26.020 --> 00:01:30.320
 the appeal, that specific appeal to the next scheduled meeting.

00:01:30.320 --> 00:01:31.680
 Thank you.

00:01:31.680 --> 00:01:36.640
 Sorry, you already told me that, so I forgot to announce it.

00:01:36.640 --> 00:01:37.640
 So thank you, Stephanie.

00:01:37.640 --> 00:01:38.640
 That's okay.

00:01:38.640 --> 00:01:40.640
 Daryl, I'm going to step away just a minute.

00:01:40.640 --> 00:01:44.040
 I need to get something from my assistant that I need from the meeting.

00:01:44.040 --> 00:01:45.040
 Okay.

00:01:45.040 --> 00:01:49.080
 Give me one second.

00:01:49.080 --> 00:01:51.800
 Anybody know any clean jokes that we can tell?

00:01:51.800 --> 00:02:00.080
 And I'm trying to remember some that Sarah always share with us.

00:02:00.080 --> 00:02:03.800
 So the one that she told this morning, Stephanie?

00:02:03.800 --> 00:02:05.800
 Yes.

00:02:05.800 --> 00:02:08.120
 About the clam.

00:02:08.120 --> 00:02:10.000
 How did it go?

00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:12.680
 I don't remember.

00:02:12.680 --> 00:02:13.680
 Muscles.

00:02:13.680 --> 00:02:19.160
 What did, I'm going to go and mess it up.

00:02:19.160 --> 00:02:21.680
 I shouldn't have said anything.

00:02:21.680 --> 00:02:23.600
 Something about a clam with muscles.

00:02:23.600 --> 00:02:25.480
 Oh my goodness.

00:02:25.480 --> 00:02:34.800
 And it was one that she said about, something about peppermint.

00:02:34.800 --> 00:02:35.800
 I can't remember.

00:02:35.800 --> 00:02:38.280
 I'm a bad joke teller.

00:02:38.280 --> 00:02:39.840
 They're always good dad jokes.

00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:45.800
 All right, could you, could you back up and do a song and dance routine then?

00:02:45.800 --> 00:02:47.200
 I'll let Rachel handle that.

00:02:47.200 --> 00:02:50.560
 I'm going to say Chair, all I need is an audience.

00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:52.560
 That's all I need.

00:02:52.560 --> 00:02:56.120
 All right, here's John.

00:02:56.120 --> 00:02:57.880
 We're good.

00:02:57.880 --> 00:03:02.000
 John, we need to do one other thing.

00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:03.000
 Public comments.

00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:06.960
 According to Crystal, we don't have any filed.

00:03:06.960 --> 00:03:09.120
 That's correct.

00:03:09.120 --> 00:03:10.840
 And no, no callers, sir.

00:03:10.840 --> 00:03:11.840
 No callers.

00:03:11.840 --> 00:03:12.840
 Okay.

00:03:12.840 --> 00:03:13.840
 Thank you.

00:03:13.840 --> 00:03:21.280
 Now, John, we need to just, let's go ahead and take care of this business right now upfront.

00:03:21.280 --> 00:03:30.160
 On the agenda, if you look at the order of the agenda, the appeals are plugged in right

00:03:30.160 --> 00:03:35.840
 in the middle under subtitle or subheading G. Right?

00:03:35.840 --> 00:03:40.280
 Okay.

00:03:40.280 --> 00:03:50.640
 What I would propose, I would like to make a motion that we move items H, I, and J, or

00:03:50.640 --> 00:03:56.900
 if your numbers seven, eight, and nine prior to the appeals.

00:03:56.900 --> 00:04:01.960
 So we get the POAs out of the way, let the firemen off the hook in case they have to

00:04:01.960 --> 00:04:06.340
 go fix dinner or go on a call or something.

00:04:06.340 --> 00:04:07.800
 And then we'll do the appeals last.

00:04:07.800 --> 00:04:11.360
 I'd like to make that as a motion.

00:04:11.360 --> 00:04:12.360
 Okay.

00:04:12.360 --> 00:04:13.360
 I'll second.

00:04:13.360 --> 00:04:14.360
 Okay.

00:04:14.360 --> 00:04:22.800
 I guess we kind of know how it's going to vote, but let's say all in favor say aye.

00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:23.800
 Aye.

00:04:23.800 --> 00:04:24.800
 Opposed?

00:04:24.800 --> 00:04:25.800
 So that carries.

00:04:25.800 --> 00:04:26.800
 Good.

00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:27.800
 Thank you.

00:04:27.800 --> 00:04:35.880
 Next order of business is to approve the minutes from the November 16th meeting that were distributed

00:04:35.880 --> 00:04:38.760
 to us in our packet.

00:04:38.760 --> 00:04:45.760
 I would entertain a motion that we accept those minutes.

00:04:45.760 --> 00:04:48.600
 I move that we accept the minutes as presented.

00:04:48.600 --> 00:04:49.600
 Okay.

00:04:49.600 --> 00:04:51.800
 Did you see any corrections, additions?

00:04:51.800 --> 00:04:52.800
 I did not.

00:04:52.800 --> 00:04:55.800
 I did not see it.

00:04:55.800 --> 00:04:56.800
 Nor did I.

00:04:56.800 --> 00:04:57.800
 Okay.

00:04:57.800 --> 00:05:01.680
 I would entertain a motion, then we have a motion on the floor.

00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:04.440
 Let's all in favor say aye.

00:05:04.440 --> 00:05:05.440
 Aye.

00:05:05.440 --> 00:05:06.440
 Opposed?

00:05:06.440 --> 00:05:11.980
 Minutes are approved.

00:05:11.980 --> 00:05:17.200
 Election to chair and vice chair.

00:05:17.200 --> 00:05:31.840
 Well you know what the obvious one would be is to make a Lillian, but she's not here.

00:05:31.840 --> 00:05:36.760
 Well I was going to check your temperature, Darrell, and see how you were doing, you know,

00:05:36.760 --> 00:05:43.520
 if you were interested in continuing or if you were wanting to transition.

00:05:43.520 --> 00:05:51.040
 I am perfectly fine continuing with this arduous task, although I don't want to feel like I'm

00:05:51.040 --> 00:05:58.040
 dominating it, so if any of the others, if the other two of you want to jump in, you

00:05:58.040 --> 00:06:01.760
 know, that's fine too, but I don't mind doing it, so.

00:06:01.760 --> 00:06:08.920
 Well, Darrell, if you don't mind, that way I'll, as my other, the other parts of my life

00:06:08.920 --> 00:06:13.360
 are kind of falling into place, I would like to leave it as is if you're okay.

00:06:13.360 --> 00:06:14.640
 I'm fine with that.

00:06:14.640 --> 00:06:23.800
 Okay, so I'll move that we have Darrell Ramsey as the chair and John Baines as vice chair,

00:06:23.800 --> 00:06:25.760
 is Lillian vice chair?

00:06:25.760 --> 00:06:29.000
 No, you're, I think you're vice chair.

00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:30.000
 That's correct.

00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:31.000
 That's correct.

00:06:31.000 --> 00:06:32.000
 Mr. Baines is vice chair.

00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:37.080
 Okay, well I'm going to, I'm going to recommend that Lillian be vice chair, how about that?

00:06:37.080 --> 00:06:38.080
 Okay.

00:06:38.080 --> 00:06:39.080
 Okay.

00:06:39.080 --> 00:06:43.600
 I'll second that emotion, emotion.

00:06:43.600 --> 00:06:46.440
 Okay.

00:06:46.440 --> 00:06:47.440
 Any other discussion?

00:06:47.440 --> 00:06:48.440
 No.

00:06:48.440 --> 00:06:52.280
 All right, all in favor say aye.

00:06:52.280 --> 00:06:53.280
 Aye.

00:06:53.280 --> 00:06:54.280
 Aye.

00:06:54.280 --> 00:06:58.000
 All right, motion carries.

00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:02.880
 Next item is the fire recruit eligibility list.

00:07:02.880 --> 00:07:06.680
 You have that in a packet.

00:07:06.680 --> 00:07:09.960
 I'll defer to fire, who's here for fire?

00:07:09.960 --> 00:07:10.960
 Okay.

00:07:10.960 --> 00:07:14.520
 I think this is working, can y'all hear me okay?

00:07:14.520 --> 00:07:16.000
 I can hear you fine.

00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:19.720
 Okay, good, because I finally got this video camera to work.

00:07:19.720 --> 00:07:20.720
 Okay.

00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:30.320
 Yes, we gave the test on Saturday, the ninth, and we had 288 people show up, 279 passed,

00:07:30.320 --> 00:07:35.920
 and we gave out 109 background packets to the people who scored 85 or above.

00:07:35.920 --> 00:07:41.000
 And the list that you see before you to be approved is how they finished.

00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:46.480
 There's a, if you look between 109 and 110, there's a bold line.

00:07:46.480 --> 00:07:50.960
 And that just denotes people above the line, we gave packets to people below the line have

00:07:50.960 --> 00:07:53.560
 not been given a packet as of yet.

00:07:53.560 --> 00:07:54.560
 Okay.

00:07:54.560 --> 00:07:57.520
 What was the reason for that captain?

00:07:57.520 --> 00:08:00.840
 Where we decided not to give everybody one?

00:08:00.840 --> 00:08:01.840
 Yes, sir.

00:08:01.840 --> 00:08:09.320
 That's a good question, in the past two years, we've only had about 35, 37 people show up.

00:08:09.320 --> 00:08:13.840
 And this year with so many, we're looking to hire in three spots.

00:08:13.840 --> 00:08:19.960
 And so per con for our main conferred contract, we have to take 15 to the physical agility.

00:08:19.960 --> 00:08:26.340
 So I just did kind of rough math, you know, from what I understand, this is my first rodeo

00:08:26.340 --> 00:08:32.160
 as a recruiter, but from what I understand, it takes about two for every one background

00:08:32.160 --> 00:08:35.920
 packet that you process, like say it takes 30 people to get 15, for example.

00:08:35.920 --> 00:08:41.880
 So we just figured that, you know, a good number would be 60 to 100 somewhere in that

00:08:41.880 --> 00:08:47.920
 ballpark and just chose 85 had it been, you know, had we only gotten 50 people, we would

00:08:47.920 --> 00:08:51.040
 have given out, you know, lower the number down to 80 or something like that.

00:08:51.040 --> 00:08:56.720
 We just without any quantifiable data to use prior to this, I just guessed that 85 to try

00:08:56.720 --> 00:09:01.240
 to get 100 people.

00:09:01.240 --> 00:09:05.840
 If we had to, the test is good for a year.

00:09:05.840 --> 00:09:06.840
 Yes, sir.

00:09:06.840 --> 00:09:14.160
 If we had to, you could go further down that list beyond below 85 at some other point,

00:09:14.160 --> 00:09:15.160
 correct?

00:09:15.160 --> 00:09:16.160
 For sure.

00:09:16.160 --> 00:09:17.160
 Yes, sir.

00:09:17.160 --> 00:09:18.160
 And it's quite possible we could go below that anyway.

00:09:18.160 --> 00:09:23.640
 You know, we've been, I gave them two weeks, which is pretty standard to turn in their

00:09:23.640 --> 00:09:24.640
 background packet.

00:09:24.640 --> 00:09:26.880
 So they have till 5pm on Friday.

00:09:26.880 --> 00:09:32.440
 And you know, we're trying to process the first, we've broken the background packet

00:09:32.440 --> 00:09:37.200
 process into group A and group B. 1 through 30 would be group A and then, you know, 31

00:09:37.200 --> 00:09:42.000
 through 60 would be group B. Just to process them faster, we're trying to speed up processing

00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:45.120
 time for, you know, a safer grant that we have.

00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:47.060
 So speed is a little bit of the essence.

00:09:47.060 --> 00:09:52.480
 So but if we only get, you know, as of right now, I've only gotten 15 of those 109 packets

00:09:52.480 --> 00:09:53.480
 back.

00:09:53.480 --> 00:09:58.240
 So it's quite possible by the end of the week, if we only get 10 more, I may, you know, I'm

00:09:58.240 --> 00:10:02.480
 probably sending an email out to everybody who made 84, then 83, then 82 and shoot those

00:10:02.480 --> 00:10:07.080
 out and say, you know, turn a packet in, it doesn't hurt to turn one in, it's just, you

00:10:07.080 --> 00:10:11.560
 know, with me and then having two other background guys, it's hard to, you know, process the

00:10:11.560 --> 00:10:17.420
 sheer volume with a high rate, you know, the high turnaround.

00:10:17.420 --> 00:10:19.440
 Okay.

00:10:19.440 --> 00:10:20.920
 Any other questions, John?

00:10:20.920 --> 00:10:26.360
 No, no, I was just curious as to the line of demarcation.

00:10:26.360 --> 00:10:32.120
 Okay, I would entertain a motion that we accept the fire recruit eligibility list.

00:10:32.120 --> 00:10:33.120
 So moved.

00:10:33.120 --> 00:10:34.120
 I'll second.

00:10:34.120 --> 00:10:36.680
 All in favor say aye.

00:10:36.680 --> 00:10:38.360
 Aye.

00:10:38.360 --> 00:10:40.720
 Motion carries.

00:10:40.720 --> 00:10:45.640
 Next is the police recruit certification list.

00:10:45.640 --> 00:10:47.320
 Who's taking that one?

00:10:47.320 --> 00:10:48.320
 That's me.

00:10:48.320 --> 00:10:49.320
 Hello, Jason Colba.

00:10:49.320 --> 00:10:56.400
 I apologize for the wacky video, my laptop wouldn't play any sound for some reason.

00:10:56.400 --> 00:10:59.640
 So I'm having to do this on my phone.

00:10:59.640 --> 00:11:05.200
 We held our first civil service exam of the year also on January 9th.

00:11:05.200 --> 00:11:12.640
 We had 68 showed a test out of I think 223 registrations, 39 passed the exam.

00:11:12.640 --> 00:11:19.160
 And we're aware we still have seven names to process from our September list and that

00:11:19.160 --> 00:11:22.200
 list we have to work until March 6th.

00:11:22.200 --> 00:11:26.240
 So we're going to finish off our old list before we start on the new list and try and

00:11:26.240 --> 00:11:31.680
 do a hiring round for our July Academy.

00:11:31.680 --> 00:11:36.160
 This test wasn't as strong as our September test for some reason, it may be in the time

00:11:36.160 --> 00:11:43.320
 of the year because January's test last year was very similar to this one.

00:11:43.320 --> 00:11:45.520
 Okay.

00:11:45.520 --> 00:11:48.760
 Any questions?

00:11:48.760 --> 00:11:55.560
 You know what, Darrell, you know, I was looking at the demographics on the police test.

00:11:55.560 --> 00:12:02.880
 So Jason, can we go through those a little bit or was that another agenda item?

00:12:02.880 --> 00:12:03.880
 Sure.

00:12:03.880 --> 00:12:04.880
 Okay.

00:12:04.880 --> 00:12:06.920
 Let me see here.

00:12:06.920 --> 00:12:10.040
 Yeah, we also we also did the same.

00:12:10.040 --> 00:12:27.360
 Okay.

00:12:27.360 --> 00:12:29.440
 Okay.

00:12:29.440 --> 00:12:36.040
 So we had a total of 68 to take the test.

00:12:36.040 --> 00:12:37.400
 Yes, sir.

00:12:37.400 --> 00:12:49.040
 And then we had four black males and three of the black males failed.

00:12:49.040 --> 00:12:51.400
 All of the black females failed.

00:12:51.400 --> 00:12:53.160
 Yes.

00:12:53.160 --> 00:13:00.240
 And three of the five Hispanic females failed.

00:13:00.240 --> 00:13:05.920
 So in reading the tea leaves, what did that what did that have to say?

00:13:05.920 --> 00:13:11.640
 Well, we don't know, you know, our September test, we administer the exact same test in

00:13:11.640 --> 00:13:13.080
 September.

00:13:13.080 --> 00:13:18.680
 And we had a much stronger candidate pool, I would say, I mean, we hired 11 off of that

00:13:18.680 --> 00:13:29.000
 September list, six of those being female, two black females, the rest white females,

00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:33.080
 and then we hired, you know, Hispanic male, we had a pretty good diverse mix on our new

00:13:33.080 --> 00:13:34.080
 Academy list.

00:13:34.080 --> 00:13:40.840
 Now, having said that, this is something that we've already discussed with Crystal Babcock.

00:13:40.840 --> 00:13:44.840
 And we're going to have another meeting with her and look at the testing company we use

00:13:44.840 --> 00:13:49.680
 because we're certainly open to trying a different exam.

00:13:49.680 --> 00:13:58.320
 So comparing comparing this January exam to the September, give me give me the give me

00:13:58.320 --> 00:13:59.320
 the feedback.

00:13:59.320 --> 00:14:07.080
 Let me pull up the demographics from September.

00:14:07.080 --> 00:14:18.080
 So September's we had 83 testers out of 177 registrations, okay, 58 passed.

00:14:18.080 --> 00:14:23.960
 I'll go over that the total but the testers that took the tests.

00:14:23.960 --> 00:14:32.680
 Well, there's 36 white males, three black males, zero Asian males and 18 Hispanic males

00:14:32.680 --> 00:14:33.680
 in September.

00:14:33.680 --> 00:14:34.680
 Okay.

00:14:34.680 --> 00:14:41.220
 On our female testers, we had 12 white females, seven black females, one Asian female and

00:14:41.220 --> 00:14:43.480
 six Hispanic females.

00:14:43.480 --> 00:14:53.120
 So the failures were 11 out of 36 white males, two of the three black males, six of the 18

00:14:53.120 --> 00:15:01.680
 Hispanic males failed, zero white females failed, two of the seven black females failed

00:15:01.680 --> 00:15:04.560
 and four of the six Hispanic females failed.

00:15:04.560 --> 00:15:09.320
 So the demographics look better in September.

00:15:09.320 --> 00:15:15.340
 Still maybe not great, but you know, like I said, it's one of those things that when

00:15:15.340 --> 00:15:21.600
 we discuss this with Crystal, you know, we can go back to the history a little bit of

00:15:21.600 --> 00:15:26.640
 the test we switched to, but there are other testing companies.

00:15:26.640 --> 00:15:30.320
 And so we were going to meet with her and look at some of the other testing companies

00:15:30.320 --> 00:15:31.760
 and see what their data is.

00:15:31.760 --> 00:15:36.880
 This testing company has a ton of data that shows that it's a non-discriminatory test.

00:15:36.880 --> 00:15:41.920
 And that's one of the reasons that we had to switch from our old exam is because that

00:15:41.920 --> 00:15:45.880
 company went out of business and we can't validate that exam.

00:15:45.880 --> 00:15:51.800
 So we switched to a company that's in use around DFW by other agencies.

00:15:51.800 --> 00:15:56.620
 Originally I used a different version of this company's test and the failure rate seemed

00:15:56.620 --> 00:15:58.420
 a little higher.

00:15:58.420 --> 00:16:06.800
 And so I asked around to other agencies again and the 201 version that we currently use,

00:16:06.800 --> 00:16:11.440
 you know, just from getting feedback from other agencies, the 201 was supposed to have

00:16:11.440 --> 00:16:13.580
 a little better rate on it.

00:16:13.580 --> 00:16:16.860
 So we switched to the 201 to give that a shot.

00:16:16.860 --> 00:16:21.200
 But having said that, I'm not joined at the hip by any of these tests and if we can find

00:16:21.200 --> 00:16:25.920
 one we think is better, I'm certainly open to using a different company.

00:16:25.920 --> 00:16:28.520
 Well, Jason, my knee jerk is this.

00:16:28.520 --> 00:16:34.440
 I don't want to hold up the proceedings for today, but it does seem to me that we need

00:16:34.440 --> 00:16:40.520
 to do a little deeper dive on the reason why we're not having higher test rates.

00:16:40.520 --> 00:16:46.360
 I'd be interested in seeing a little more information on the candidates themselves just

00:16:46.360 --> 00:16:58.240
 to see if the pool from which we've drawn kind of predetermined this result or if there

00:16:58.240 --> 00:16:59.240
 was something different.

00:16:59.240 --> 00:17:07.940
 So Chairman Ramsey, I don't know how to get out of this loop right now, but anyway, I

00:17:07.940 --> 00:17:12.140
 would like to kind of get a deeper dive on some of those demographics and have another

00:17:12.140 --> 00:17:13.140
 conversation.

00:17:13.140 --> 00:17:18.200
 So I don't know how that's possible, especially with, you know, if we're having to call a

00:17:18.200 --> 00:17:22.640
 meeting and you have to have two people there and that type of thing, or you can't have

00:17:22.640 --> 00:17:26.780
 two people, you know.

00:17:26.780 --> 00:17:35.760
 My thought would be to put that as an agenda item on a future meeting, perhaps one where

00:17:35.760 --> 00:17:45.000
 it's a relatively short meeting where we approve eligibility lists and nothing else, but then

00:17:45.000 --> 00:17:53.140
 I would hope that we could go ahead and fill and pass this today and approve it as we look

00:17:53.140 --> 00:18:00.680
 into the test, which I assume will be next September-ish.

00:18:00.680 --> 00:18:07.040
 Probably late June, either June 26th or July 10th.

00:18:07.040 --> 00:18:11.320
 The idea is to have the test right around the start of our academy so we can get it

00:18:11.320 --> 00:18:16.400
 put together, certified, and then work that list for the next academy for that six months.

00:18:16.400 --> 00:18:22.580
 COVID really threw everything off in 2020 quite a bit, and I suspect that that has something

00:18:22.580 --> 00:18:27.360
 to do with our applicant pool, too, because, you know, where we would normally do in the

00:18:27.360 --> 00:18:34.800
 area of 20 to 25 recruiting events in a year, we essentially couldn't do anything in 2020.

00:18:34.800 --> 00:18:39.680
 A big draw for us is the mega career fair at Fort Hood that we would do twice a year

00:18:39.680 --> 00:18:44.800
 where 4,000 or 5,000 soldiers would come through, and there's a huge diversity of soldiers that

00:18:44.800 --> 00:18:47.720
 would come through getting ready to transition out.

00:18:47.720 --> 00:18:53.840
 I signed up for their virtual event a few months ago, and I spent three hours standing

00:18:53.840 --> 00:18:58.560
 at a laptop and I had three people pop into my booth, so it's not the same as being there

00:18:58.560 --> 00:18:59.920
 in person.

00:18:59.920 --> 00:19:03.160
 So that definitely, you know, hurt us.

00:19:03.160 --> 00:19:07.800
 We're not able to get to the college campuses and all of that stuff, and these virtual events

00:19:07.800 --> 00:19:13.000
 haven't been very good, honestly, so, you know, hopefully we can kind of get through

00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:20.560
 this COVID stuff and get back to our better, you know, recruiting events, so time will

00:19:20.560 --> 00:19:21.560
 tell, I guess.

00:19:21.560 --> 00:19:27.200
 Jason, I got one more question, and then I'm going to get off the horse.

00:19:27.200 --> 00:19:35.240
 Last year was a pretty tough year for police relations in the community, and at least from

00:19:35.240 --> 00:19:37.920
 my perspective, there was just a lot of stuff going on.

00:19:37.920 --> 00:19:41.680
 Do you think that may have affected the recruiting?

00:19:41.680 --> 00:19:46.600
 Oh, absolutely, without a doubt.

00:19:46.600 --> 00:19:53.240
 Where we're seeing now, kind of the result of that is our lateral applications are really

00:19:53.240 --> 00:19:58.580
 starting to take off from the states where they're, you know, as a result of those things

00:19:58.580 --> 00:20:02.480
 that were happening, they're passing some really restrictive things where they're talking

00:20:02.480 --> 00:20:05.660
 about qualified immunity and all that stuff.

00:20:05.660 --> 00:20:12.200
 So we're getting quite a few calls from, you know, Illinois, California, Colorado.

00:20:12.200 --> 00:20:16.520
 Their cops are starting to bail out of those states, honestly, and they're looking to come

00:20:16.520 --> 00:20:19.240
 somewhere where they can work in a better environment.

00:20:19.240 --> 00:20:27.400
 So I think there's some of that, you know, in September, one of the females we hired

00:20:27.400 --> 00:20:34.360
 was a dispatcher for Cook County for Chicago, and that was a, she comes from a police family

00:20:34.360 --> 00:20:40.120
 and didn't want to, she wanted to get her daughter into a better living environment

00:20:40.120 --> 00:20:42.120
 and didn't want a police in that environment.

00:20:42.120 --> 00:20:46.440
 So she somehow came down to North Texas and tested with us, and she's in our academy now

00:20:46.440 --> 00:20:47.440
 now.

00:20:47.440 --> 00:20:50.600
 So it's definitely interesting.

00:20:50.600 --> 00:20:54.680
 But I think, I think people that want to be involved in public service are going to find

00:20:54.680 --> 00:20:56.400
 a way to do it.

00:20:56.400 --> 00:21:01.640
 And honestly, I think more Texas is probably the one of the very best areas in the country

00:21:01.640 --> 00:21:02.640
 for policing.

00:21:02.640 --> 00:21:08.240
 And so, you know, as time goes on, we'll see more of those candidates here rather than

00:21:08.240 --> 00:21:09.240
 other states.

00:21:09.240 --> 00:21:13.240
 Thank you, Jason, and Chairman Ramsey.

00:21:13.240 --> 00:21:21.600
 So if we can maybe make a motion to put that on a, on a subsequent agenda item, where we

00:21:21.600 --> 00:21:26.400
 can do a deeper dive on the demographics, because they seem to be a little, little less

00:21:26.400 --> 00:21:28.200
 desirable than I would like to see.

00:21:28.200 --> 00:21:29.200
 Sure.

00:21:29.200 --> 00:21:30.200
 Sure.

00:21:30.200 --> 00:21:31.200
 I don't know that we need a motion.

00:21:31.200 --> 00:21:35.400
 I think we can just put it on as a note if, is that right, Stephanie?

00:21:35.400 --> 00:21:36.400
 Yes.

00:21:36.400 --> 00:21:40.240
 And we have a section at the end of the agenda where we discuss future meetings.

00:21:40.240 --> 00:21:43.840
 So that may be an opportunity to discuss it further.

00:21:43.840 --> 00:21:44.840
 Thank you for your indulgence.

00:21:44.840 --> 00:21:51.600
 I would entertain a motion that we accept the, what are we doing, the police recruit

00:21:51.600 --> 00:21:55.280
 list certification list.

00:21:55.280 --> 00:21:57.240
 John?

00:21:57.240 --> 00:22:00.920
 Yes, yes.

00:22:00.920 --> 00:22:05.240
 Your, is that a motion?

00:22:05.240 --> 00:22:09.280
 I'm still in the fall, please forgive me.

00:22:09.280 --> 00:22:12.940
 I move that we accept the police recruitment list as presented.

00:22:12.940 --> 00:22:15.840
 No laughing, Stephanie.

00:22:15.840 --> 00:22:16.840
 Okay.

00:22:16.840 --> 00:22:20.760
 All in favor say aye.

00:22:20.760 --> 00:22:21.760
 Aye.

00:22:21.760 --> 00:22:29.440
 This is a, this is a Stephanie and Michael question.

00:22:29.440 --> 00:22:36.800
 We have a five recruit eligibility list and a police recruit certification list.

00:22:36.800 --> 00:22:45.040
 Somewhere in our recent past we had a discussion about eligibility versus certification.

00:22:45.040 --> 00:22:54.160
 Do we need to make any alteration in either of those titles?

00:22:54.160 --> 00:22:58.840
 I'm wondering if there's maybe some language in the different contracts that calls it something

00:22:58.840 --> 00:22:59.840
 different maybe?

00:22:59.840 --> 00:23:00.840
 That's correct.

00:23:00.840 --> 00:23:01.840
 Yes.

00:23:01.840 --> 00:23:02.840
 Yeah.

00:23:02.840 --> 00:23:03.840
 Okay.

00:23:03.840 --> 00:23:04.840
 All right.

00:23:04.840 --> 00:23:10.080
 Okay, at one point, so I just, I saw that and I thought maybe we need to ask the question

00:23:10.080 --> 00:23:11.080
 anyway.

00:23:11.080 --> 00:23:12.080
 Okay.

00:23:12.080 --> 00:23:21.160
 That being done, next is the POA position opportunity announcement for the fire driver

00:23:21.160 --> 00:23:24.240
 promotional exam.

00:23:24.240 --> 00:23:28.400
 Who's doing that one?

00:23:28.400 --> 00:23:29.400
 That's me.

00:23:29.400 --> 00:23:30.400
 Okay.

00:23:30.400 --> 00:23:37.480
 So we have the, you're going to see the POAs for fire driver, fire captain and fire battalion

00:23:37.480 --> 00:23:40.360
 chief and other separate agenda items.

00:23:40.360 --> 00:23:41.360
 Right.

00:23:41.360 --> 00:23:49.600
 They are, so the dates for our promotional exams are written in our meet and confer contract.

00:23:49.600 --> 00:23:56.960
 So that's where the, which are the first Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of March every year.

00:23:56.960 --> 00:24:06.280
 So that's where March 4th for fire driver, March 3rd for fire captain and March 2nd for

00:24:06.280 --> 00:24:08.920
 fire battalion chief come from.

00:24:08.920 --> 00:24:14.880
 They'll be on those respective dates at two o'clock, central fire station as we do every

00:24:14.880 --> 00:24:15.880
 year.

00:24:15.880 --> 00:24:21.160
 Then the promotional exam source material, the commission's already approved.

00:24:21.160 --> 00:24:28.440
 You did that, I believe in November.

00:24:28.440 --> 00:24:34.880
 So there they are, our registration deadlines, one week prior to the exams, that gives us

00:24:34.880 --> 00:24:41.440
 an opportunity to ensure we have the proper amount of tests and verify that any prerequisites

00:24:41.440 --> 00:24:46.440
 that are required for any of those positions are met prior to the testing date.

00:24:46.440 --> 00:24:47.440
 Okay.

00:24:47.440 --> 00:24:52.000
 Any questions?

00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:55.720
 John, do you have any?

00:24:55.720 --> 00:24:56.960
 No, I have no questions.

00:24:56.960 --> 00:24:57.960
 Okay.

00:24:57.960 --> 00:25:03.080
 I would entertain a motion that we approve the fire driver POA.

00:25:03.080 --> 00:25:06.280
 I make the motion that we approve the POAs presented.

00:25:06.280 --> 00:25:07.720
 All right.

00:25:07.720 --> 00:25:08.720
 Second?

00:25:08.720 --> 00:25:10.760
 So all in favor say aye.

00:25:10.760 --> 00:25:11.760
 Aye.

00:25:11.760 --> 00:25:17.920
 Okay, next is the fire captain.

00:25:17.920 --> 00:25:24.240
 I think probably anything, anything new to add?

00:25:24.240 --> 00:25:26.040
 No, sir.

00:25:26.040 --> 00:25:27.040
 Okay.

00:25:27.040 --> 00:25:29.120
 You kind of get them all together.

00:25:29.120 --> 00:25:33.320
 The dates and the source material are really the only things that are different on them.

00:25:33.320 --> 00:25:38.780
 You've already seen the source material and like I said, the dates are written into our

00:25:38.780 --> 00:25:42.400
 mean defer contract.

00:25:42.400 --> 00:25:43.400
 Okay.

00:25:43.400 --> 00:25:44.400
 Questions?

00:25:44.400 --> 00:25:53.920
 I move that we accept the POA for the fire captain promotional exam.

00:25:53.920 --> 00:25:54.920
 Second.

00:25:54.920 --> 00:25:55.920
 As presented.

00:25:55.920 --> 00:25:56.920
 Second.

00:25:56.920 --> 00:25:59.520
 All in favor say aye.

00:25:59.520 --> 00:26:00.520
 Aye.

00:26:00.520 --> 00:26:04.080
 And so that motion passes.

00:26:04.080 --> 00:26:08.120
 Next is the POA for the fire battalion chief.

00:26:08.120 --> 00:26:15.280
 I have nothing further to add, Dr. Andrew.

00:26:15.280 --> 00:26:18.400
 Is that the same day or the day before?

00:26:18.400 --> 00:26:19.400
 It's the day before.

00:26:19.400 --> 00:26:23.920
 The day for battalion chief is March 2nd.

00:26:23.920 --> 00:26:27.080
 Fire captain is March 3rd and fire driver is March 4th.

00:26:27.080 --> 00:26:28.080
 Okay.

00:26:28.080 --> 00:26:32.720
 I kept looking to make sure I was getting the right dates.

00:26:32.720 --> 00:26:33.720
 Okay.

00:26:33.720 --> 00:26:42.160
 I move that we accept the POA announcement for fire battalion chief promotional exam

00:26:42.160 --> 00:26:43.160
 as presented.

00:26:43.160 --> 00:26:44.160
 Second.

00:26:44.160 --> 00:26:45.160
 Any discussion?

00:26:45.160 --> 00:26:46.160
 No discussion.

00:26:46.160 --> 00:26:47.160
 All in favor say aye.

00:26:47.160 --> 00:26:48.160
 Aye.

00:26:48.160 --> 00:26:49.160
 Opposed?

00:26:49.160 --> 00:26:50.160
 No one.

00:26:50.160 --> 00:26:51.160
 So we're all set.

00:26:51.160 --> 00:26:52.160
 Yeah.

00:26:52.160 --> 00:26:53.160
 John?

00:26:53.160 --> 00:26:54.160
 I'm on the meeting right now.

00:26:54.160 --> 00:26:55.160
 Thank you.

00:26:55.160 --> 00:26:56.160
 Sorry about that.

00:26:56.160 --> 00:27:07.040
 Let me disconnect the phone.

00:27:07.040 --> 00:27:08.760
 I did that before you came on.

00:27:08.760 --> 00:27:09.760
 So.

00:27:09.760 --> 00:27:10.760
 Okay.

00:27:10.760 --> 00:27:24.800
 Next item of business, going back on the agenda to item CSC 21011, are the appealed questions

00:27:24.800 --> 00:27:30.100
 from the police sergeant promotional exam.

00:27:30.100 --> 00:27:39.640
 So let me just a second to get my, change gears here.

00:27:39.640 --> 00:27:56.520
 Just a reminder, when we do the appeals, the person who is making the appeal will get a

00:27:56.520 --> 00:28:05.040
 chance to speak their, speak their, their argument, make their argument.

00:28:05.040 --> 00:28:11.660
 And there'll be a chance for questions from the commissioners.

00:28:11.660 --> 00:28:18.960
 There will be, ask for a police response.

00:28:18.960 --> 00:28:20.840
 Who's going to do the police responses?

00:28:20.840 --> 00:28:24.360
 That would be me, Michael Barron.

00:28:24.360 --> 00:28:26.120
 Okay.

00:28:26.120 --> 00:28:33.840
 And then questions there, then we'll, if I can remember, we will have a time where we

00:28:33.840 --> 00:28:42.400
 would ask for anyone to speak in opposition to the, to the appeal.

00:28:42.400 --> 00:28:48.920
 There are a couple of items that are, that have two appellants.

00:28:48.920 --> 00:28:59.840
 I would simply ask the appellants, if they're here with us, to present any new information

00:28:59.840 --> 00:29:00.840
 that hasn't been presented.

00:29:00.840 --> 00:29:06.480
 In other words, if you're the second presenter, you don't need to rehash everything that we've

00:29:06.480 --> 00:29:08.600
 already done.

00:29:08.600 --> 00:29:14.440
 But if you have new information that you'd like to add to that, we certainly want you

00:29:14.440 --> 00:29:15.440
 to do that.

00:29:15.440 --> 00:29:20.560
 That's, that's, that's your, your chance.

00:29:20.560 --> 00:29:27.760
 My philosophy on this has always been that you get a chance to air your concerns and

00:29:27.760 --> 00:29:34.560
 then we can take everything under consideration and then ultimately make a decision.

00:29:34.560 --> 00:29:42.600
 So first, I'll say this now, I'll probably say it again at the end, to all of the appellants,

00:29:42.600 --> 00:29:50.160
 thank you very, very much for taking the time out of your busy lives, lives to even study

00:29:50.160 --> 00:29:55.240
 for this exam, take the exam and do the appeals.

00:29:55.240 --> 00:30:00.360
 You may not like us when we get done because your appeal didn't get approved, but please

00:30:00.360 --> 00:30:11.520
 understand that we do truly appreciate the work that you have put into this and we'll

00:30:11.520 --> 00:30:15.560
 do our best to be fair to everyone concerned.

00:30:15.560 --> 00:30:25.800
 So that being said, is there anything else that we need to say, Stephanie or Crystal?

00:30:25.800 --> 00:30:35.320
 All right, now, first appeal is question number eight, and again, we have, electronically

00:30:35.320 --> 00:30:39.120
 we have all of the supporting materials.

00:30:39.120 --> 00:30:54.760
 So first appeal is by Sarah Keith, so Sarah, be sure to unmute yourself and you're on.

00:30:54.760 --> 00:31:02.280
 The appeal for question eight is based mainly in the fact that the grammatical structure

00:31:02.280 --> 00:31:12.640
 of the question does not allow the first options to be correct, and therefore the last answer

00:31:12.640 --> 00:31:20.600
 D cannot be all of the above because it's missing the word and, and that's the basis

00:31:20.600 --> 00:31:25.720
 of my argument, which is on my written appeal.

00:31:25.720 --> 00:31:33.160
 Questions for Officer Keith?

00:31:33.160 --> 00:31:41.600
 John, do you have any questions?

00:31:41.600 --> 00:31:54.360
 Well I'm looking at the, at the appeal here, and I have printed out all the appeals, but

00:31:54.360 --> 00:32:02.280
 as far as the source material, I do, I don't have that with me.

00:32:02.280 --> 00:32:04.840
 It's in a, it's in a Dropbox file.

00:32:04.840 --> 00:32:10.160
 Did you not get the Dropbox file?

00:32:10.160 --> 00:32:20.360
 I'll refer the email to you, Mr. Ramsey or Baines.

00:32:20.360 --> 00:32:39.000
 What I would, I agree that there's a grammatical issue, but in looking at the, in looking at

00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:47.880
 the source material, all three of those are listed, and I don't see, while giving, giving

00:32:47.880 --> 00:32:56.080
 a test sometimes does kind of fracture the grammatic, the grammar of an issue with all

00:32:56.080 --> 00:33:01.640
 three of those issues there, I don't, I don't see where that we could, that we need to make

00:33:01.640 --> 00:33:08.080
 a change, but police response?

00:33:08.080 --> 00:33:15.160
 Yes sir, what you just said is the, a summary of the police response, all three of those

00:33:15.160 --> 00:33:22.680
 are listed in the source material, none of them individually would be a correct answer.

00:33:22.680 --> 00:33:37.040
 Okay, John, that, that is found on the task force on page three.

00:33:37.040 --> 00:33:40.800
 Okay, I see it here.

00:33:40.800 --> 00:33:41.800
 Okay.

00:33:41.800 --> 00:33:46.920
 All right, okay.

00:33:46.920 --> 00:33:54.080
 Please forgive me everyone, I'm, I'm without my regular email system, I'm, we're having

00:33:54.080 --> 00:34:04.160
 a fight with Microsoft 365, and so I'm having to kind of go backwards into my emails, and

00:34:04.160 --> 00:34:06.520
 I miss this, so I apologize for that.

00:34:06.520 --> 00:34:31.320
 Okay, let's see if I can get there, sorry Sarah, okay, okay, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry,

00:34:31.320 --> 00:34:42.920
 sorry.

00:34:42.920 --> 00:34:52.960
 So Darryl, help me out here, which particular, which of the particular source materials are

00:34:52.960 --> 00:34:54.280
 we looking at here?

00:34:54.280 --> 00:35:04.320
 We're looking at the president's task force on 21st century policing, page three, pillar

00:35:04.320 --> 00:35:05.320
 four.

00:35:05.320 --> 00:35:06.320
 Page what now?

00:35:06.320 --> 00:35:07.320
 Three.

00:35:07.320 --> 00:35:08.320
 Okay.

00:35:08.320 --> 00:35:25.200
 Color four, and let's see.

00:35:25.200 --> 00:35:32.200
 Found it yesterday.

00:35:32.200 --> 00:35:40.480
 Okay, pillar four.

00:35:40.480 --> 00:35:42.720
 Yes, sir.

00:35:42.720 --> 00:35:43.720
 Okay.

00:35:43.720 --> 00:35:50.680
 To look at that short hash paragraph on the, on the right column.

00:35:50.680 --> 00:35:51.680
 Yes.

00:35:51.680 --> 00:35:56.680
 Page 17, pillar four.

00:35:56.680 --> 00:35:57.680
 Last sentence.

00:35:57.680 --> 00:36:05.800
 Law enforcement agencies.

00:36:05.800 --> 00:36:12.960
 Yes.

00:36:12.960 --> 00:36:28.400
 Okay.

00:36:28.400 --> 00:36:57.920
 So, Sarah, please forgive me for the, excuse me, Officer Key.

00:36:57.920 --> 00:37:07.480
 Please forgive me for asking the question again here, but your contention was that it

00:37:07.480 --> 00:37:10.840
 should be C rather than D?

00:37:10.840 --> 00:37:16.520
 Correct, because if you place any of those answers alone into the fill in the blank and

00:37:16.520 --> 00:37:20.520
 the nature of a fill in the blank is that it has to make sense when you insert it into

00:37:20.520 --> 00:37:22.280
 this sentence.

00:37:22.280 --> 00:37:27.600
 So if you insert any of those answers, A, B, or C into the, into the sentence, the only

00:37:27.600 --> 00:37:33.300
 one that grammatically makes sense is answer C. And if you were to choose answer D, you

00:37:33.300 --> 00:37:38.520
 would need to add the word and in order for it to grammatically make sense.

00:37:38.520 --> 00:37:48.120
 Each of those answers, A on its own, B on its own, would not make sense because it says

00:37:48.120 --> 00:37:55.000
 approaches for planning to crisis situations does not make sense.

00:37:55.000 --> 00:38:00.700
 Approaches for implementing to crisis situations does not make sense.

00:38:00.700 --> 00:38:05.320
 Approaches for responding to crisis situations does make sense.

00:38:05.320 --> 00:38:11.280
 And again, like I said, if you do all of the above, you need the word and inserted between

00:38:11.280 --> 00:38:16.560
 implementing and responding.

00:38:16.560 --> 00:38:20.840
 And the police response was what again, please?

00:38:20.840 --> 00:38:25.920
 That all three of those are listed in the source material and none of them individually

00:38:25.920 --> 00:38:26.920
 would be correct.

00:38:26.920 --> 00:38:34.240
 The way the question is written, if you, if C said and responding as it's quoted in the

00:38:34.240 --> 00:38:37.000
 text, that wouldn't make sense grammatically either.

00:38:37.000 --> 00:38:41.600
 But the option is only responding.

00:38:41.600 --> 00:38:47.760
 So inserted by itself C into that question, into that sentence would make sense and would

00:38:47.760 --> 00:38:52.800
 be correct.

00:38:52.800 --> 00:39:08.840
 >> Thank you for catching me up, I apologize.

00:39:08.840 --> 00:39:11.200
 So Daryl, are you waiting on me or are you going to make a recommendation?

00:39:11.200 --> 00:39:21.680
 >> I was kind of waiting on you on the questions for either police or officer Keith.

00:39:21.680 --> 00:39:39.800
 If you have other questions, let me, let me go ahead and do the other thing, which is

00:39:39.800 --> 00:39:57.600
 to ask if there's anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

00:39:57.600 --> 00:40:00.440
 Not seeing anyone raising their hand.

00:40:00.440 --> 00:40:04.880
 Hi, John, it's back to you.

00:40:04.880 --> 00:40:10.320
 >> Okay, Chairman Ramsey, I think in comparing the question to the response, I think I'm

00:40:10.320 --> 00:40:15.400
 going to have to, to stay with the guide here and go with the answer as D.

00:40:15.400 --> 00:40:21.960
 >> So motion is to sustain the key.

00:40:21.960 --> 00:40:22.960
 >> Sustain the key.

00:40:22.960 --> 00:40:23.960
 >> All right.

00:40:23.960 --> 00:40:24.960
 I'll second that.

00:40:24.960 --> 00:40:27.960
 On favor, say aye.

00:40:27.960 --> 00:40:29.960
 >> Aye.

00:40:29.960 --> 00:40:44.760
 >> And the next one is 18, but I understand if I got the message correctly, Sara, I mean,

00:40:44.760 --> 00:40:47.440
 Officer Keith, that you're going to book for that one?

00:40:47.440 --> 00:40:48.440
 >> Yes, please.

00:40:48.440 --> 00:40:49.440
 >> Okay.

00:40:49.440 --> 00:40:50.440
 All right.

00:40:50.440 --> 00:40:53.320
 Sara and I talked a lot over the phone this summer.

00:40:53.320 --> 00:40:57.520
 You may not remember, but we spent a lot of time together.

00:40:57.520 --> 00:41:11.040
 All right, next is item 39, Travis, your opportunity to make your case.

00:41:11.040 --> 00:41:14.280
 >> Good afternoon.

00:41:14.280 --> 00:41:17.400
 >> How are you?

00:41:17.400 --> 00:41:18.400
 >> I'm well.

00:41:18.400 --> 00:41:26.000
 So at this time, I am going to remove my appeal on number 39.

00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:33.640
 >> All righty.

00:41:33.640 --> 00:41:39.240
 Next is item 53 and this is yours.

00:41:39.240 --> 00:41:40.240
 >> Yes.

00:41:40.240 --> 00:41:44.720
 Hi, this is Officer Jared Ray.

00:41:44.720 --> 00:41:45.720
 How are you guys?

00:41:45.720 --> 00:41:46.720
 >> Good.

00:41:46.720 --> 00:41:47.720
 >> Good.

00:41:47.720 --> 00:41:48.720
 Thank you.

00:41:48.720 --> 00:41:54.880
 >> All right, so on number 53, the reason why I was appealing it is I understand that

00:41:54.880 --> 00:42:05.240
 it says what always merits the designation, what got me whenever I was reading the test

00:42:05.240 --> 00:42:15.840
 question on the day of the test was all three of them listed as far as ABCD, out of zone

00:42:15.840 --> 00:42:21.440
 of safety for the chronological agent development stage, mentally or physically disabled, and

00:42:21.440 --> 00:42:26.080
 the company of others who could jeopardize your safety, all three of those were listed

00:42:26.080 --> 00:42:32.280
 out of the eight topics in the general order.

00:42:32.280 --> 00:42:42.080
 So with all of those listed, if we went to a call and we had someone that was, like it

00:42:42.080 --> 00:42:46.720
 says, out of the zone of safety for their age, they were mentally disabled, and the

00:42:46.720 --> 00:42:52.360
 company of others, we had someone that met all three of those criteria.

00:42:52.360 --> 00:42:56.240
 I believe that that person could be listed as a high-risk missing person and probably

00:42:56.240 --> 00:43:00.120
 should be, or else it's going to go back on the police officer, it's going to go on the

00:43:00.120 --> 00:43:03.800
 sergeant, it's going to go on the city, and it's just going to be a big deal.

00:43:03.800 --> 00:43:08.360
 So I believe that it could have been not none of the above, but it could have been all.

00:43:08.360 --> 00:43:17.480
 So had it been all of the above, I think it would have been a more fitting answer.

00:43:17.480 --> 00:43:23.120
 Okay.

00:43:23.120 --> 00:43:26.120
 Thank you, sir.

00:43:26.120 --> 00:43:27.120
 Questions?

00:43:27.120 --> 00:43:28.120
 John?

00:43:28.120 --> 00:43:30.760
 I need just a second, please.

00:43:30.760 --> 00:43:31.760
 Thank you.

00:43:31.760 --> 00:43:32.760
 Okay.

00:43:32.760 --> 00:43:35.760
 Have you found the source?

00:43:35.760 --> 00:43:37.640
 Yes, I did.

00:43:37.640 --> 00:43:41.880
 We're also working to get to where I can share my screen and pull up the source material

00:43:41.880 --> 00:43:45.400
 when we're referencing it, so it'll be just one second.

00:43:45.400 --> 00:43:46.400
 Okay.

00:43:46.400 --> 00:43:57.560
 So, Officer Ray, for the sake of those of us who might be chronologically challenged,

00:43:57.560 --> 00:44:08.000
 I'm going to ask you to repeat for me your understanding as to why D is incorrect.

00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:09.000
 Right.

00:44:09.000 --> 00:44:16.480
 So on General Order 315 for missing persons, it says in there that these examples alone,

00:44:16.480 --> 00:44:20.400
 and it gives a list of A through H, if you would like, I could read them to you.

00:44:20.400 --> 00:44:25.880
 These examples alone might not merit designation as a high-risk missing person.

00:44:25.880 --> 00:44:26.880
 I understand that.

00:44:26.880 --> 00:44:27.880
 I agree with that.

00:44:27.880 --> 00:44:28.880
 No.

00:44:28.880 --> 00:44:32.720
 And so whenever I read, "Out of zone of safety for their chronological age and development

00:44:32.720 --> 00:44:38.160
 stage," that's someone that may be intellectual disability.

00:44:38.160 --> 00:44:43.400
 They may be 15, but they're intellectually a two-year-old.

00:44:43.400 --> 00:44:48.960
 And then you have someone that's in the same person that's mentally or behavioral disabled,

00:44:48.960 --> 00:44:53.080
 and then that same person is in the company of others that could jeopardize the welfare.

00:44:53.080 --> 00:44:56.640
 They're with a bad group of people.

00:44:56.640 --> 00:45:01.000
 That's why I believe that it could be all of the above versus none of the above because,

00:45:01.000 --> 00:45:04.800
 again, it says these examples alone might not merit.

00:45:04.800 --> 00:45:10.240
 But I have all three of them listed on the test, and that's where, to me, it's confusing

00:45:10.240 --> 00:45:13.480
 as a question.

00:45:13.480 --> 00:45:15.720
 And the police response, again, was what, please?

00:45:15.720 --> 00:45:18.240
 Well, we haven't gotten there yet, so.

00:45:18.240 --> 00:45:19.240
 Okay.

00:45:19.240 --> 00:45:20.240
 Okay.

00:45:20.240 --> 00:45:24.080
 But you have other questions for Jared?

00:45:24.080 --> 00:45:27.960
 Not really a question, but I was just going to emphasize a point once I heard the police

00:45:27.960 --> 00:45:28.960
 response.

00:45:28.960 --> 00:45:32.080
 Let's go and get the police response.

00:45:32.080 --> 00:45:34.160
 Yes, sir.

00:45:34.160 --> 00:45:37.520
 The question is, "What always merits?"

00:45:37.520 --> 00:45:44.120
 And there are two categories in the list that always merit, and it's A and B. And then all

00:45:44.120 --> 00:45:59.680
 the subsections, A through H, might merit.

00:45:59.680 --> 00:46:00.680
 Officer Behrends?

00:46:00.680 --> 00:46:02.920
 Yes, sir.

00:46:02.920 --> 00:46:05.400
 So here's what I'm looking at.

00:46:05.400 --> 00:46:13.440
 I see a question that says, "Which always merits designation as a high risk?"

00:46:13.440 --> 00:46:19.120
 And so the operative for me is the word "always."

00:46:19.120 --> 00:46:28.920
 And then you say A and B are both on the list for always?

00:46:28.920 --> 00:46:37.160
 If you look under the bold font, "high risk missing," A, missing as a result of abduction

00:46:37.160 --> 00:46:43.600
 by a stranger, B, missing under suspicious or unknown circumstances, such as when the

00:46:43.600 --> 00:46:45.600
 person is 13 years of age or younger.

00:46:45.600 --> 00:46:46.600
 Yes.

00:46:46.600 --> 00:46:52.560
 And everything below that might not merit designation.

00:46:52.560 --> 00:47:07.680
 In other words, same to me, as I ran through this, that if you're going to use as the stem

00:47:07.680 --> 00:47:11.040
 of the question, "which always merits designation as a high risk missing person," you should

00:47:11.040 --> 00:47:21.200
 list A, as a result of abduction by a stranger, B, missing under suspicious or unknown circumstances,

00:47:21.200 --> 00:47:28.560
 C, missing more than 30 days or less than 30 days at the discussion, D, reported missing

00:47:28.560 --> 00:47:36.840
 on four or more occasions, five, and on with good, those are the always's.

00:47:36.840 --> 00:47:37.840
 Your question says "always."

00:47:37.840 --> 00:47:43.720
 You don't have any of those on there.

00:47:43.720 --> 00:47:48.560
 And that's why none of the above is the correct answer.

00:47:48.560 --> 00:48:08.800
 I'm struggling with the transition and the use of the word "always."

00:48:08.800 --> 00:48:17.520
 And then it says, "high risk missing includes persons who are missing as a result of an

00:48:17.520 --> 00:48:26.480
 abduction by a stranger, missing under suspicious or unknown circumstances."

00:48:26.480 --> 00:48:41.160
 And then the unknown circumstances then enumerates A and B, and it goes through a listing there.

00:48:41.160 --> 00:48:48.200
 And then those other items would be the always.

00:48:48.200 --> 00:49:05.320
 So you got A, B, C, D, E, and M are all high risk missing persons.

00:49:05.320 --> 00:49:11.960
 And so then we come back to the question, which says, "which always merits designation

00:49:11.960 --> 00:49:27.080
 as a high risk missing person," that A and that B would warrant, and always, that's how

00:49:27.080 --> 00:49:35.120
 I'm reading it, "out of the zone of safety for their chronological age or mentally or

00:49:35.120 --> 00:49:36.800
 behaviorally disabled."

00:49:36.800 --> 00:49:42.480
 And also F. And also F, John.

00:49:42.480 --> 00:49:43.480
 Yes.

00:49:43.480 --> 00:49:52.240
 F is also verbatim, or answer C, which is F in the definitions.

00:49:52.240 --> 00:50:02.040
 Well, I don't know, am I allowed to speak again?

00:50:02.040 --> 00:50:08.920
 The way I read the question is, if they're missing as a result of an abduction, or if

00:50:08.920 --> 00:50:14.160
 they're under suspicious or unknown circumstances when they're 13 years of age or younger, those

00:50:14.160 --> 00:50:19.240
 are the two that always merits.

00:50:19.240 --> 00:50:26.840
 And then everything else is might merit, and it says these examples alone might not merit

00:50:26.840 --> 00:50:32.640
 designation.

00:50:32.640 --> 00:50:40.200
 Other questions, John?

00:50:40.200 --> 00:50:45.520
 I'm struggling.

00:50:45.520 --> 00:50:50.600
 I deal with the difficult language every day, and this one's a little challenging for me.

00:50:50.600 --> 00:50:51.600
 I agree with you.

00:50:51.600 --> 00:50:56.680
 Let me go ahead and finish, and then we'll get to discussion, unless you have other questions.

00:50:56.680 --> 00:50:57.680
 I do not.

00:50:57.680 --> 00:50:58.680
 It's just a statement.

00:50:58.680 --> 00:50:59.680
 All right.

00:50:59.680 --> 00:51:04.440
 Well, let's discuss, and then we can bring in the interested parties as we need to.

00:51:04.440 --> 00:51:15.640
 Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

00:51:15.640 --> 00:51:23.320
 Seeing none, discussion, John, you and I?

00:51:23.320 --> 00:51:27.120
 I hate the question.

00:51:27.120 --> 00:51:30.640
 It's a very difficult question.

00:51:30.640 --> 00:51:35.360
 I don't personally like it.

00:51:35.360 --> 00:51:41.880
 The always versus might is kind of tacky, personally.

00:51:41.880 --> 00:51:51.280
 I would like to see us accept all through A, B, and C. I think there's simply explanations

00:51:51.280 --> 00:51:57.040
 of an all of an always, is my personal feeling.

00:51:57.040 --> 00:52:00.240
 Well, yeah, those three are always.

00:52:00.240 --> 00:52:03.240
 That's what I'm saying.

00:52:03.240 --> 00:52:04.240
 Those three are always.

00:52:04.240 --> 00:52:12.120
 I mean, according to the definition, but I think those three that are listed as answers

00:52:12.120 --> 00:52:24.800
 are simply explanations of the B portion of what is considered to be always.

00:52:24.800 --> 00:52:35.480
 I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the might and always, and I'm sure that probably

00:52:35.480 --> 00:52:40.640
 others have that same distinction issue.

00:52:40.640 --> 00:52:43.720
 So what is your suggestion, Mr. Chair?

00:52:43.720 --> 00:52:51.760
 I will move that we accept A, B, and C.

00:52:51.760 --> 00:52:52.760
 I'll second that motion.

00:52:52.760 --> 00:52:53.760
 Okay.

00:52:53.760 --> 00:52:54.760
 Now we can discuss it.

00:52:54.760 --> 00:52:55.760
 Okay.

00:52:55.760 --> 00:52:56.760
 All right.

00:52:56.760 --> 00:52:57.760
 Okay.

00:52:57.760 --> 00:53:02.240
 Is there anything else that needs to be discussed about it?

00:53:02.240 --> 00:53:03.240
 Not for me.

00:53:03.240 --> 00:53:06.840
 I just found it a very challenging question.

00:53:06.840 --> 00:53:10.760
 We have very challenging options there.

00:53:10.760 --> 00:53:11.760
 Okay.

00:53:11.760 --> 00:53:21.920
 So the motion on the floor is to accept A, B, and C. All in favor, say aye.

00:53:21.920 --> 00:53:22.920
 Aye.

00:53:22.920 --> 00:53:23.920
 Aye.

00:53:23.920 --> 00:53:24.920
 Opposed?

00:53:24.920 --> 00:53:31.360
 With a wink, wink, nod, nod, Michael, one more look at that question.

00:53:31.360 --> 00:53:32.360
 Yes, sir.

00:53:32.360 --> 00:53:40.960
 And so I guess just to be clear, Mr. Ramsey, so I guess you're granting that appeal, correct

00:53:40.960 --> 00:53:41.960
 on that one?

00:53:41.960 --> 00:53:42.960
 That's correct.

00:53:42.960 --> 00:53:50.280
 In a manner of speaking, yes.

00:53:50.280 --> 00:53:51.280
 Okay.

00:53:51.280 --> 00:54:02.760
 Next is Item 57, Travis.

00:54:02.760 --> 00:54:30.360
 Okay, so just a second, I'm trying to get to the, okay, so on Number 57, it had to do

00:54:30.360 --> 00:54:38.940
 with who's responsible for pursuits, who has responsibility during vehicle pursuits according

00:54:38.940 --> 00:54:49.880
 to the men's police department policies.

00:54:49.880 --> 00:55:01.000
 The 307.3.2 vehicle pursuits, which is on page 3, states that if any officer other than

00:55:01.000 --> 00:55:07.560
 a supervisor determines the risk of the pursuit outweigh the safety of the involved officers

00:55:07.560 --> 00:55:14.280
 and those in the community, the officer may direct the pursuit to be terminated.

00:55:14.280 --> 00:55:24.480
 So I felt that the answer should have been all of the above, if my memory serves me correctly.

00:55:24.480 --> 00:55:27.920
 Answer A was the primary officer.

00:55:27.920 --> 00:55:31.520
 Answer B was the secondary officer.

00:55:31.520 --> 00:55:39.520
 Answer C was the sergeant, or answer D was all of the above.

00:55:39.520 --> 00:55:46.000
 Question, field supervisor, officer initiating, secondary officer, all of the above.

00:55:46.000 --> 00:55:55.320
 And I felt that answer D was correct, all of the above, have responsibility in vehicle

00:55:55.320 --> 00:55:58.320
 pursuits.

00:55:58.320 --> 00:56:25.160
 Look, if you look at 307.3.2, well, the secondary pursuit vehicle is not mentioned in your argument,

00:56:25.160 --> 00:56:32.440
 so how do you justify that as being a correct answer?

00:56:32.440 --> 00:56:33.440
 Okay.

00:56:33.440 --> 00:56:45.320
 Well, because, like I said, in the first part of 307.3.2, it says if any officer other than

00:56:45.320 --> 00:56:51.000
 a supervisor, so that would be your primary officer and your secondary officer, and even

00:56:51.000 --> 00:56:57.320
 the third officer, they were available if it says any officer.

00:56:57.320 --> 00:57:04.480
 That's not exclusive to a sergeant or a supervisor.

00:57:04.480 --> 00:57:22.040
 All right, point me again to the sentence that you just quoted.

00:57:22.040 --> 00:57:24.480
 I'm sorry, what was your question?

00:57:24.480 --> 00:57:32.000
 Where is the point you just quoted about any officer, where do you see that?

00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:48.240
 Mr. Ramsey, I pulled it up on the screen, sir.

00:57:48.240 --> 00:57:58.880
 Under 307.3.2, in the second paragraph, when a supervisor directs a pursuit to be terminated,

00:57:58.880 --> 00:58:02.320
 the officer will immediately terminate the pursuit.

00:58:02.320 --> 00:58:09.280
 Second sentence, if any officer other than a supervisor determines the risk of the pursuit,

00:58:09.280 --> 00:58:14.040
 outweigh the safety of the involved officers and those in the community, the officer may

00:58:14.040 --> 00:58:16.720
 direct the pursuit to be terminated.

00:58:16.720 --> 00:58:24.640
 So any other officer would be the primary officer, secondary officer, and so on, whomever

00:58:24.640 --> 00:58:35.400
 was involved, other than just a supervisor or a sergeant.

00:58:35.400 --> 00:58:52.000
 Okay, now there's a separate section 307.6, which specifically speaks about supervisory

00:58:52.000 --> 00:59:05.400
 control and responsibilities, okay?

00:59:05.400 --> 00:59:19.840
 So we had that 307.2, but this is 307.6, so.

00:59:19.840 --> 00:59:26.600
 And their responsibility, that would be in D, subsection D.

00:59:26.600 --> 00:59:35.560
 Okay, I see that.

00:59:35.560 --> 00:59:40.720
 Any response to that, Mr. Nicholas, officer Nicholas?

00:59:40.720 --> 00:59:42.320
 Yes, sir.

00:59:42.320 --> 00:59:49.480
 Do you have any response to Mr. Baines' comment, question?

00:59:49.480 --> 00:59:59.000
 It looks like the question is really addressing the supervisory control and not just control

00:59:59.000 --> 01:00:13.400
 of a termination in general, is that, does that strike a chord, Mr. Nicholas, officer

01:00:13.400 --> 01:00:22.320
 Nicholas?

01:00:22.320 --> 01:00:23.320
 Right, yes, sir.

01:00:23.320 --> 01:00:24.320
 Yeah, I see that.

01:00:24.320 --> 01:00:25.320
 But again.

01:00:25.320 --> 01:00:26.320
 Go ahead.

01:00:26.320 --> 01:00:27.320
 I'm waiting.

01:00:27.320 --> 01:00:39.480
 So again, as it reads in 307.32, prior to that, though, it says any officer.

01:00:39.480 --> 01:00:46.000
 So again, it's not just, I understand that is a supervisor's role or responsibility,

01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:52.920
 but 307.3.2 says any officer's responsibility.

01:00:52.920 --> 01:00:55.840
 Now, let's go back to the question.

01:00:55.840 --> 01:00:58.800
 Do you have a copy of the question there?

01:00:58.800 --> 01:01:03.840
 I was looking for it, but I do not have the actual test question in front of me.

01:01:03.840 --> 01:01:08.080
 So I'm looking at something here that says question 57.

01:01:08.080 --> 01:01:11.200
 Yeah, I have.

01:01:11.200 --> 01:01:19.440
 And then down at the bottom, underneath A, B, C, and D, it says 307.6, supervisory control.

01:01:19.440 --> 01:01:22.000
 Were you aware of this reference?

01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:24.560
 Yes, sir.

01:01:24.560 --> 01:01:25.800
 Okay.

01:01:25.800 --> 01:01:35.120
 So it looks like they're wanting you to base your answer on 307.6 rather than 307.2, which

01:01:35.120 --> 01:01:41.340
 is my head is off to you for being able to quote that, but it looks like they're mainly

01:01:41.340 --> 01:01:43.840
 focusing on the supervisory responsibility.

01:01:43.840 --> 01:01:54.840
 John, I'm going to jump in there and go to Michael, because I'm not sure that that question

01:01:54.840 --> 01:02:00.960
 has 307.6 listed on the test.

01:02:00.960 --> 01:02:08.480
 307.6 is for our benefit to know where the question actually came from.

01:02:08.480 --> 01:02:09.480
 Is that correct?

01:02:09.480 --> 01:02:10.480
 Yes, sir.

01:02:10.480 --> 01:02:11.480
 Yes, sir.

01:02:11.480 --> 01:02:12.480
 That is correct.

01:02:12.480 --> 01:02:16.680
 So he wouldn't have known the difference between 307.6 and 307.2.

01:02:16.680 --> 01:02:17.680
 Yes.

01:02:17.680 --> 01:02:22.200
 He would have just known chapter three.

01:02:22.200 --> 01:02:27.000
 That would have been his only cue was chapter three.

01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:31.200
 Is that correct?

01:02:31.200 --> 01:02:32.200
 Yes, sir.

01:02:32.200 --> 01:02:33.200
 You're absolutely correct.

01:02:33.200 --> 01:02:37.200
 The question ends after D, all of the above.

01:02:37.200 --> 01:02:42.160
 That's all that anything that they would have access to on the test would have been above

01:02:42.160 --> 01:02:43.160
 D, all of the above.

01:02:43.160 --> 01:02:44.160
 Yeah.

01:02:44.160 --> 01:02:50.300
 That doesn't necessarily change the nature of your question, John, but what it does,

01:02:50.300 --> 01:02:55.480
 it's not something that would have been that specific that Travis would have seen.

01:02:55.480 --> 01:02:57.760
 Well, and that was what I was trying to get at.

01:02:57.760 --> 01:03:05.920
 See, I'm looking at this recapitulation of question 57, but everything that I see here

01:03:05.920 --> 01:03:09.280
 was not available to the test takers.

01:03:09.280 --> 01:03:16.800
 Yes, officer Nicholas, you had a question or a comment?

01:03:16.800 --> 01:03:18.000
 Yes, sir.

01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:26.800
 The last sentence of question 57 also states these are some of the responsibilities of whom.

01:03:26.800 --> 01:03:33.640
 So these are some responsibilities of all the officers.

01:03:33.640 --> 01:03:43.880
 It doesn't say specifically to whom, it just says some of the responsibilities of whom.

01:03:43.880 --> 01:03:47.520
 So let's go back to these four bullet points, okay?

01:03:47.520 --> 01:03:56.400
 So directing the pursuit be terminated if in their judgment it is not justified to continue.

01:03:56.400 --> 01:04:00.560
 Bullet two, ensuring the proper radio channel is being used.

01:04:00.560 --> 01:04:08.160
 Bullet three, exercising management and control of the pursuit, even if not engaged in it.

01:04:08.160 --> 01:04:13.960
 And the last bullet, ensuring that no more than the required law enforcement vehicles

01:04:13.960 --> 01:04:19.400
 are involved in the pursuit, all of that is found in which subset?

01:04:19.400 --> 01:04:24.200
 Is it point two or point six?

01:04:24.200 --> 01:04:32.200
 All of those in totality are under 307.6.

01:04:32.200 --> 01:04:38.480
 But if you take out the first one, directing the pursuit be terminated if in their judgment

01:04:38.480 --> 01:04:44.240
 it is not justified to continue is also listed under 307.3.2.

01:04:44.240 --> 01:04:45.240
 Okay.

01:04:45.240 --> 01:04:56.320
 And then in the conclusion, after those responsibilities are listed, the direction it asks or the statement

01:04:56.320 --> 01:05:02.040
 is these are some of the responsibilities of blank.

01:05:02.040 --> 01:05:09.760
 So these are some of the responsibilities of 307.32 as well as 307.6.

01:05:09.760 --> 01:05:16.800
 So let's go now back to the source material and see if we could find these four bullet

01:05:16.800 --> 01:05:17.800
 points.

01:05:17.800 --> 01:05:43.000
 If our technical person can get us to that screen, please.

01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:48.320
 Okay so I see point D is the first bullet.

01:05:48.320 --> 01:06:01.440
 Point E, excuse me, the radio contact is F, exercising management, that's point B. And

01:06:01.440 --> 01:06:18.400
 then the last bullet point, going back, there we go, there we are.

01:06:18.400 --> 01:06:25.440
 That's point C. So all four of those are found under 307.6.

01:06:25.440 --> 01:06:36.620
 So let's go back to 307.2 and let's see how many of those are there, please.

01:06:36.620 --> 01:06:42.640
 And Mr. Baines, if I may, please, please, for the sake of time, there's only one that's

01:06:42.640 --> 01:06:51.560
 listed on 307.3.2 and that's the first directing the pursuit be terminated if in their judgment

01:06:51.560 --> 01:06:53.940
 it is not justified to continue.

01:06:53.940 --> 01:06:58.920
 That is the only one that will be found there, the other three are not.

01:06:58.920 --> 01:07:05.040
 But it's not listed as a bullet point though, is it?

01:07:05.040 --> 01:07:06.240
 I think it's in the body.

01:07:06.240 --> 01:07:10.840
 No sir, no, it's not listed as a bullet point, you're correct.

01:07:10.840 --> 01:07:25.040
 Okay, so now we've had this discussion before about if you're gonna go to a source material,

01:07:25.040 --> 01:07:32.060
 it looks like the bulk of those bullet points are gonna be under point six rather than under

01:07:32.060 --> 01:07:33.060
 point two.

01:07:33.060 --> 01:07:34.060
 Yes.

01:07:34.060 --> 01:07:35.280
 Would you agree?

01:07:35.280 --> 01:07:36.280
 Yes.

01:07:36.280 --> 01:07:49.880
 Okay, okay, okay, so there are, it looks like to me, we're gonna have to stay with the key.

01:07:49.880 --> 01:07:55.120
 All right, well, hang on, we gotta get the, we got a couple of things to do and then we

01:07:55.120 --> 01:07:56.120
 can discuss it.

01:07:56.120 --> 01:07:57.120
 Okay.

01:07:57.120 --> 01:07:58.120
 That's fine.

01:07:58.120 --> 01:07:59.120
 First response.

01:07:59.120 --> 01:08:00.120
 Michael?

01:08:00.120 --> 01:08:01.120
 Yes, sir.

01:08:01.120 --> 01:08:08.640
 If we can scroll, throw 307.4.3 up.

01:08:08.640 --> 01:08:23.640
 307.4.3, primary is in pursuit, okay.

01:08:23.640 --> 01:08:29.880
 It lists all the responsibilities of the primary unit.

01:08:29.880 --> 01:08:34.280
 And none of those bullet points in this question appear in that list.

01:08:34.280 --> 01:08:35.280
 Okay.

01:08:35.280 --> 01:08:45.880
 Okay, and if we can go down just a little bit more to 307.4.4, and there's the secondary

01:08:45.880 --> 01:08:52.880
 pursuit vehicle responsibilities, and none of the answer or none of the information in

01:08:52.880 --> 01:08:56.360
 the question are in those bullet points either.

01:08:56.360 --> 01:09:00.080
 So the responsibilities are spelled out, the supervisor responsibilities are spelled out,

01:09:00.080 --> 01:09:02.360
 they have all of those bullet points in them.

01:09:02.360 --> 01:09:07.000
 The secondary and primary units have none of those items.

01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:08.960
 Right.

01:09:08.960 --> 01:09:17.600
 There's nothing in 307.4.4 that says that they would do any of those things, right?

01:09:17.600 --> 01:09:18.600
 Right.

01:09:18.600 --> 01:09:19.600
 Is that what you're saying?

01:09:19.600 --> 01:09:20.600
 Okay.

01:09:20.600 --> 01:09:21.600
 Yes, sir.

01:09:21.600 --> 01:09:24.480
 So, that makes A, the preferred answer?

01:09:24.480 --> 01:09:28.200
 Yes, sir.

01:09:28.200 --> 01:09:31.800
 Okay.

01:09:31.800 --> 01:09:36.080
 Any other questions for police?

01:09:36.080 --> 01:09:44.080
 Just to comment, Mr. Nicholas, thank you for your scholarship and your hard work.

01:09:44.080 --> 01:09:51.240
 I think I'm going to have to defer, though, to the bulk of those points, which are directly

01:09:51.240 --> 01:09:58.000
 related to the supervisor, rather than to the other individuals that are involved in

01:09:58.000 --> 01:09:59.000
 the decision-making.

01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:00.000
 Okay.

01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:02.880
 Hang on one more second there, John.

01:10:02.880 --> 01:10:03.880
 Yes, sir.

01:10:03.880 --> 01:10:13.400
 Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:10:13.400 --> 01:10:16.400
 Seeing none, hearing none, now.

01:10:16.400 --> 01:10:17.400
 John?

01:10:17.400 --> 01:10:18.400
 Yes.

01:10:18.400 --> 01:10:24.120
 I think we're on the same page, so why don't you just make a motion?

01:10:24.120 --> 01:10:28.520
 I make the motion that we sustain the key.

01:10:28.520 --> 01:10:31.960
 I'll second that.

01:10:31.960 --> 01:10:41.680
 I agree with your comments to Officer Nicholas, and if all the source material, everything

01:10:41.680 --> 01:10:46.440
 that was brought in is the source material, there was no outside source material involved

01:10:46.440 --> 01:10:48.920
 in this question.

01:10:48.920 --> 01:11:01.560
 All right, next is item 58, Officer Weatherford, there he is.

01:11:01.560 --> 01:11:02.560
 Hello.

01:11:02.560 --> 01:11:03.560
 Magically appears.

01:11:03.560 --> 01:11:04.560
 Only when I'm needed.

01:11:04.560 --> 01:11:16.760
 All right, I am appealing number 8, I'm sorry, 58.

01:11:16.760 --> 01:11:25.880
 The material on that is general order 401, specifically 401.1.

01:11:25.880 --> 01:11:30.840
 My appeal on that is that the reasoning is that there is no correct answer, and I'll

01:11:30.840 --> 01:11:38.400
 read to you the question and the answers, the question is what is bias-based policing?

01:11:38.400 --> 01:11:46.500
 The answers are A, a reliance on actual or perceived characteristics as the basis for

01:11:46.500 --> 01:11:52.240
 providing law enforcement service or enforcement, B, using protected characteristics with credible

01:11:52.240 --> 01:12:00.200
 information to connect a person to a specific unlawful incident, C is neither A nor B, and

01:12:00.200 --> 01:12:07.320
 D is both A and B. The correct answer according to the key was A, a reliance on actual or

01:12:07.320 --> 01:12:13.880
 perceived characters as the basis for providing law enforcement service or enforcement.

01:12:13.880 --> 01:12:20.320
 My reason for the appeal is that the full definition is actually lacking several important

01:12:20.320 --> 01:12:22.320
 words.

01:12:22.320 --> 01:12:29.160
 The full definition says an inappropriate reliance on an actual or perceived characteristic

01:12:29.160 --> 01:12:36.080
 such as race, ethnicity, protected, you know, all the protected characteristics, and then

01:12:36.080 --> 01:12:41.720
 the last part says as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement.

01:12:41.720 --> 01:12:48.520
 Both the words inappropriate and differing are missing from the answer A.

01:12:48.520 --> 01:12:52.520
 Differing is in there, isn't it?

01:12:52.520 --> 01:12:54.760
 No, it's not.

01:12:54.760 --> 01:13:00.760
 Differing, differing, well answer A says differing law enforcement.

01:13:00.760 --> 01:13:09.000
 Oh, I guess it is.

01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:10.000
 That must be in there.

01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:11.000
 I'm sorry.

01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:12.000
 I probably wrote that down wrong.

01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:13.960
 But I know inappropriate is not in there.

01:13:13.960 --> 01:13:18.000
 Inappropriate is not in there, yes.

01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:23.480
 Any questions for the appellant?

01:13:23.480 --> 01:13:27.640
 I need just a second, Daryl, thank you.

01:13:27.640 --> 01:13:28.640
 Okay.

01:13:28.640 --> 01:13:32.080
 Can you listen to the police response while you're doing that?

01:13:32.080 --> 01:13:34.080
 Please, I would love to.

01:13:34.080 --> 01:13:36.520
 Michael, you're on.

01:13:36.520 --> 01:13:38.240
 Yes, sir.

01:13:38.240 --> 01:13:42.840
 Providing differing police service or enforcement based on real or perceived characteristics

01:13:42.840 --> 01:13:50.440
 is the driving focus of what the answer says in A. Just because the word inappropriate

01:13:50.440 --> 01:13:55.760
 is omitted in that sentence doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

01:13:55.760 --> 01:14:01.260
 It cannot be B. B is speaking to connecting a person to a crime, and that doesn't appear

01:14:01.260 --> 01:14:05.240
 in the definition anywhere.

01:14:05.240 --> 01:14:12.960
 I feel like A is the best answer without question.

01:14:12.960 --> 01:14:22.360
 So a reliance versus an inappropriate reliance are the same thing?

01:14:22.360 --> 01:14:29.160
 I mean, I can read the whole sentence if you'd like, but...

01:14:29.160 --> 01:14:36.240
 No, I hear what you're saying, but what they're getting at is anything for providing differing

01:14:36.240 --> 01:14:41.280
 law enforcement service, whether it's appropriate or inappropriate.

01:14:41.280 --> 01:14:47.000
 I don't think omitting the word inappropriate changes the meaning of the sentence.

01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:49.040
 In this context.

01:14:49.040 --> 01:14:55.320
 Thank you so much.

01:14:55.320 --> 01:15:04.320
 So I can go out and do something, and if it's appropriate, I'm fine.

01:15:04.320 --> 01:15:10.800
 But if it's inappropriate, I'm arrested and put in jail.

01:15:10.800 --> 01:15:17.400
 So that's a pretty big difference in my mind.

01:15:17.400 --> 01:15:25.320
 That's a really big word, unless you can explain to me how it is the same without the word

01:15:25.320 --> 01:15:31.680
 inappropriate in there, which would then make C the correct answer, because it's neither

01:15:31.680 --> 01:15:39.440
 A or B.

01:15:39.440 --> 01:15:49.840
 The way I read it is if you rely on any characteristic to provide differing law enforcement service,

01:15:49.840 --> 01:15:50.840
 that is inappropriate.

01:15:50.840 --> 01:15:54.840
 That's wrong.

01:15:54.840 --> 01:15:56.320
 And that's what the question is going at.

01:15:56.320 --> 01:16:00.840
 That's what the definition is going after, is providing different law enforcement service

01:16:00.840 --> 01:16:08.200
 based on a characteristic.

01:16:08.200 --> 01:16:13.720
 Chairman Ramsey, I could go either way on that one.

01:16:13.720 --> 01:16:22.360
 That one is I could go with a reliance or an inappropriate reliance.

01:16:22.360 --> 01:16:24.960
 To me, you could get away with either one.

01:16:24.960 --> 01:16:34.240
 I don't know, get away is not the right word to talk about police questions, but I could

01:16:34.240 --> 01:16:35.440
 select either one.

01:16:35.440 --> 01:16:38.840
 You are absolutely right.

01:16:38.840 --> 01:16:44.240
 I think I have in here that it's another one of those questions that I think you need to

01:16:44.240 --> 01:16:48.920
 look at real carefully, but what is bias-based policing?

01:16:48.920 --> 01:16:55.880
 It's a reliance on actual or perceived characteristics, but if it's bias-based, it's also based on

01:16:55.880 --> 01:16:56.880
 inappropriate.

01:16:56.880 --> 01:17:08.480
 I mean, the bias-based is sort of a generic description, and I see where John is coming

01:17:08.480 --> 01:17:09.480
 from.

01:17:09.480 --> 01:17:10.480
 It could be both.

01:17:10.480 --> 01:17:13.120
 It could be either way.

01:17:13.120 --> 01:17:23.280
 But I think inappropriate is the one that's going to get someone in bigger trouble than

01:17:23.280 --> 01:17:32.960
 appropriate as far as accusations of bias, so I think that's a pretty significant word

01:17:32.960 --> 01:17:36.120
 myself that's left out of the question.

01:17:36.120 --> 01:17:48.520
 I do, too, but as a reader of the question, I could go with an answer that says an inappropriate

01:17:48.520 --> 01:17:52.000
 reliance or a reliance.

01:17:52.000 --> 01:18:02.160
 To me, I could go with either one, so that makes it fair game for something different

01:18:02.160 --> 01:18:06.360
 than the key.

01:18:06.360 --> 01:18:26.880
 I did answer C, and the reason, of course, was because it didn't read to me that it was

01:18:26.880 --> 01:18:28.160
 inappropriate.

01:18:28.160 --> 01:18:34.680
 It wasn't, you know, it didn't seem like, obviously, basing things on people's characteristics.

01:18:34.680 --> 01:18:38.600
 I mean, we literally have to do that all the time because of descriptions of people, things

01:18:38.600 --> 01:19:01.440
 like that, but that's kind of how I read it more, without the inappropriate word in there.

01:19:01.440 --> 01:19:07.360
 And I would argue that we do different kinds of policing for different kinds of communities,

01:19:07.360 --> 01:19:15.760
 you know, for certain types of genders and things like that, you know, we do treat people

01:19:15.760 --> 01:19:20.360
 differently, have different rules for different things.

01:19:20.360 --> 01:19:25.340
 You know, we get a female to search a female, I mean, just based on different characteristics,

01:19:25.340 --> 01:19:31.920
 we do do that, so I think the word inappropriate is very important.

01:19:31.920 --> 01:19:38.000
 John, what do you make a motion?

01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:43.000
 Do you want me to make a motion?

01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:46.600
 I think we're going to make different motions.

01:19:46.600 --> 01:19:53.080
 Okay, well, my motion would be to...

01:19:53.080 --> 01:19:59.680
 I don't know, I don't think the question is faulty, but I think it's complex.

01:19:59.680 --> 01:20:06.320
 The answer is complex, and, you know, there's a lot of subjectivity that you have to deal

01:20:06.320 --> 01:20:14.560
 with here, but if you're talking about going to the material, and they had the source material

01:20:14.560 --> 01:20:21.000
 which said an inappropriate reliance was there.

01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:30.160
 However, if you rely on actual or perceived characteristics, that can also be bias-based

01:20:30.160 --> 01:20:34.560
 policing, because you're relying on it.

01:20:34.560 --> 01:20:40.120
 So I'm struggling there with...

01:20:40.120 --> 01:20:55.280
 Well, I think they chose the wrong word to leave out to make that an answer.

01:20:55.280 --> 01:21:00.680
 The test takers do that from time to time, you know, they're going to try to give you

01:21:00.680 --> 01:21:04.600
 the answer and leave out a word or two.

01:21:04.600 --> 01:21:16.580
 Except this is the right answer, but the source material does say an inappropriate definitions

01:21:16.580 --> 01:21:25.800
 of bias-based policing is, one of them is, an inappropriate reliance, which would make

01:21:25.800 --> 01:21:32.760
 C the correct answer for the question.

01:21:32.760 --> 01:21:35.840
 That would be my motion.

01:21:35.840 --> 01:21:50.720
 Okay, are you going to make that motion?

01:21:50.720 --> 01:21:56.480
 If I can, I guess, can I step away from the chair and make a motion?

01:21:56.480 --> 01:21:57.480
 Sure.

01:21:57.480 --> 01:21:58.480
 Okay.

01:21:58.480 --> 01:21:59.480
 Okay.

01:21:59.480 --> 01:22:02.480
 I'll second that motion.

01:22:02.480 --> 01:22:06.400
 And then we'll discuss it a little bit more.

01:22:06.400 --> 01:22:07.400
 Okay.

01:22:07.400 --> 01:22:21.560
 Motion made, seconded to accept answer C rather than A. Now we can discuss it.

01:22:21.560 --> 01:22:35.840
 Sherman Ramsey, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go with A and with, if you're going

01:22:35.840 --> 01:22:43.120
 to do that, you couldn't use B.

01:22:43.120 --> 01:22:59.000
 Right?

01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:02.520
 So I guess I'll have to second your motion to make it neither A nor B.

01:23:02.520 --> 01:23:03.520
 Okay.

01:23:03.520 --> 01:23:04.520
 Okay.

01:23:04.520 --> 01:23:13.280
 I'd like to confirm one thing, if it's okay.

01:23:13.280 --> 01:23:14.280
 Sure.

01:23:14.280 --> 01:23:18.120
 Let me take a look here.

01:23:18.120 --> 01:23:19.120
 Your echo's on, Stephanie.

01:23:19.120 --> 01:23:22.320
 And I'm sorry, I don't know how I can speak.

01:23:22.320 --> 01:23:28.800
 Jared accidentally hit his microphone button.

01:23:28.800 --> 01:23:32.120
 So the decision is that you're only going to accept C.

01:23:32.120 --> 01:23:41.520
 So for those test takers who chose D, that would no longer be the correct answer.

01:23:41.520 --> 01:23:43.480
 Is that what I'm hearing based on the motion?

01:23:43.480 --> 01:23:46.480
 A is the key answer.

01:23:46.480 --> 01:23:47.480
 Okay.

01:23:47.480 --> 01:23:49.120
 A is the key.

01:23:49.120 --> 01:23:50.120
 A is the key.

01:23:50.120 --> 01:23:54.760
 So you're going to accept A and C as an answer, right?

01:23:54.760 --> 01:23:58.280
 But C is really the correct answer.

01:23:58.280 --> 01:23:59.280
 Okay.

01:23:59.280 --> 01:24:05.800
 So as it's listed with the word "inappropriate" left out, at least that's the motion on the

01:24:05.800 --> 01:24:06.800
 floor.

01:24:06.800 --> 01:24:10.460
 It hasn't actually been passed officially.

01:24:10.460 --> 01:24:15.480
 So that makes C the right answer.

01:24:15.480 --> 01:24:16.480
 So what about A?

01:24:16.480 --> 01:24:19.200
 Is C the right answer or the best answer?

01:24:19.200 --> 01:24:26.680
 Well, C would be the right answer.

01:24:26.680 --> 01:24:43.840
 Or the best answer because of the omission of the word "inappropriate."

01:24:43.840 --> 01:24:52.720
 Well, as I poorly stated earlier, I could accept A.

01:24:52.720 --> 01:24:58.320
 But I can also accept C.

01:24:58.320 --> 01:25:25.240
 Well, let me ask you a question.

01:25:25.240 --> 01:25:30.440
 I don't have the question right in front of me, but you're saying you could accept A or

01:25:30.440 --> 01:25:36.280
 C. I mean, is the question worded that you have, it has to be only one right answer,

01:25:36.280 --> 01:25:37.280
 right?

01:25:37.280 --> 01:25:42.600
 I mean, you can't have two unless it says, like, all the above or something, either one

01:25:42.600 --> 01:25:43.600
 is the right answer.

01:25:43.600 --> 01:25:45.600
 It can't be this or that, right?

01:25:45.600 --> 01:25:46.600
 Yes.

01:25:46.600 --> 01:25:54.040
 It's either A, which is the key answer, with the word "inappropriate" left out, then B,

01:25:54.040 --> 01:26:02.020
 which is not an issue, it is definitely not an answer, then the other two are neither

01:26:02.020 --> 01:26:08.840
 A and B, or the other answer is both A and B.

01:26:08.840 --> 01:26:19.240
 So if A is an incorrect statement, then C, which is neither A or B, would be the correct

01:26:19.240 --> 01:26:20.240
 response.

01:26:20.240 --> 01:26:29.280
 If A is the correct answer, even without appropriate, then that is the correct answer.

01:26:29.280 --> 01:26:34.960
 Here's the way I take that.

01:26:34.960 --> 01:26:44.640
 If I'm going to police with bias, then I'm relying on something I actually see or something

01:26:44.640 --> 01:26:53.800
 that I perceive, if I'm going to be biased.

01:26:53.800 --> 01:27:04.160
 And then, if you want to go and say, well, it doesn't include that word "inappropriate,"

01:27:04.160 --> 01:27:14.800
 then that would make it the wrong answer.

01:27:14.800 --> 01:27:28.680
 And so you would go to neither A nor B. So that's why I say I'm still stuck, Darrell,

01:27:28.680 --> 01:27:34.960
 with A and C, for me personally, but I realize we have more business to proceed with, and

01:27:34.960 --> 01:27:41.120
 so I don't want to stay here longer than we should.

01:27:41.120 --> 01:27:44.840
 Let me ask you this, Mr. Ramsey.

01:27:44.840 --> 01:27:53.320
 If you think the answer is as written, left out something significant, then in a sense

01:27:53.320 --> 01:27:58.840
 is the question itself just a bad question all around, and therefore I think under your

01:27:58.840 --> 01:28:01.760
 rules, everybody gets credit for it?

01:28:01.760 --> 01:28:11.400
 Or I'm just trying to make it easy for you and trying to come to a decision on whether

01:28:11.400 --> 01:28:13.960
 to grant the appeal or deny it.

01:28:13.960 --> 01:28:19.600
 Is it so bad that the question itself is deficient, and therefore I think under the rules, everyone

01:28:19.600 --> 01:28:26.200
 should get credit and deficient because it left out an important word?

01:28:26.200 --> 01:28:29.200
 Would you be willing to go that way, Darrell?

01:28:29.200 --> 01:28:33.720
 Could we amend that and say, "Accept A and C"?

01:28:33.720 --> 01:28:37.000
 Well, you can't change the answer.

01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:40.000
 You can't change the answer.

01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:41.000
 No, no, no.

01:28:41.000 --> 01:28:48.040
 But what I'm saying is that on our amendment, I mean, on our decision, my motion was to

01:28:48.040 --> 01:28:54.000
 accept C as the correct answer.

01:28:54.000 --> 01:29:01.600
 Could we amend that amendment and say, "Accept A and C"?

01:29:01.600 --> 01:29:02.600
 That's what I was thinking.

01:29:02.600 --> 01:29:06.800
 It doesn't taste very good, but I'll live with it.

01:29:06.800 --> 01:29:12.120
 Your options under the rules are to either sustain the answer key, disqualify the answer

01:29:12.120 --> 01:29:18.080
 key, or disqualify the test question.

01:29:18.080 --> 01:29:24.640
 May I have a question from the floor?

01:29:24.640 --> 01:29:26.240
 Yes, sir.

01:29:26.240 --> 01:29:32.720
 If the question can be such that there could be two correct answers, then I think it would

01:29:32.720 --> 01:29:38.920
 be best to just omit the question itself altogether.

01:29:38.920 --> 01:29:48.280
 Well, hang on, I'm going to get back to your comment.

01:29:48.280 --> 01:29:55.680
 Stephanie, we're changing the answer key, and we can do that.

01:29:55.680 --> 01:29:59.960
 We've done that numerous times by accepting A and C.

01:29:59.960 --> 01:30:03.200
 Yes, you have done it.

01:30:03.200 --> 01:30:09.400
 Which that way, we don't have to eliminate the question, because eliminating the question

01:30:09.400 --> 01:30:17.440
 penalizes everyone who took the test, and we don't want to do that.

01:30:17.440 --> 01:30:23.760
 Is that a question, or is that a holding your pen in an odd way?

01:30:23.760 --> 01:30:24.960
 That was a question.

01:30:24.960 --> 01:30:25.960
 Okay.

01:30:25.960 --> 01:30:34.920
 That's what you just said was what I was going to ask, because if you're saying the question

01:30:34.920 --> 01:30:40.760
 just goes away, then that negatively affects the people who-

01:30:40.760 --> 01:30:41.760
 Everybody.

01:30:41.760 --> 01:30:42.760
 Yeah.

01:30:42.760 --> 01:30:43.760
 Everybody.

01:30:43.760 --> 01:30:44.760
 Right.

01:30:44.760 --> 01:30:53.400
 Yeah, we don't want to eliminate the question, but we're not for this particular test.

01:30:53.400 --> 01:30:56.680
 We're not going to take it away from this particular test.

01:30:56.680 --> 01:31:11.160
 I could live with accepting A and C. That would be amending my motion to include A and

01:31:11.160 --> 01:31:19.040
 C. John, will you second that amended motion to accept A and C?

01:31:19.040 --> 01:31:21.520
 John will second that amended motion.

01:31:21.520 --> 01:31:22.520
 Okay.

01:31:22.520 --> 01:31:31.440
 I don't think that's needed, right, Michael, Stephanie, because we can change the key to

01:31:31.440 --> 01:31:33.320
 accept more answers.

01:31:33.320 --> 01:31:34.320
 So all right.

01:31:34.320 --> 01:31:35.320
 Yes.

01:31:35.320 --> 01:31:39.480
 Now, that being said, John, is there any other discussion that we need to do on this one?

01:31:39.480 --> 01:31:40.480
 No.

01:31:40.480 --> 01:31:43.280
 I'm all in favor of that amended motion.

01:31:43.280 --> 01:31:49.640
 So all in favor of accepting A and C, say aye.

01:31:49.640 --> 01:31:50.640
 Aye.

01:31:50.640 --> 01:31:52.640
 Opposed?

01:31:52.640 --> 01:31:54.640
 None.

01:31:54.640 --> 01:31:57.640
 All right.

01:31:57.640 --> 01:31:58.640
 Michael?

01:31:58.640 --> 01:31:59.640
 Yes, sir.

01:31:59.640 --> 01:32:01.640
 I don't want to see that question again.

01:32:01.640 --> 01:32:02.640
 No, no, no.

01:32:02.640 --> 01:32:03.640
 Yeah.

01:32:03.640 --> 01:32:04.640
 I'm clear on that question.

01:32:04.640 --> 01:32:10.000
 But I need to go back because some of the discussion on 58 caused me to have a question

01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:12.000
 on 53.

01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:19.040
 The vote was to accept A, B, and C. The key to answer was B. So how do we proceed with

01:32:19.040 --> 01:32:20.040
 that?

01:32:20.040 --> 01:32:24.720
 Anybody that put A or C in there gets a correct answer.

01:32:24.720 --> 01:32:31.760
 So it's A, B, or C. Any of those answers are correct.

01:32:31.760 --> 01:32:33.160
 So the people that answered in D.

01:32:33.160 --> 01:32:34.160
 They're out.

01:32:34.160 --> 01:32:35.160
 Okay.

01:32:35.160 --> 01:32:36.160
 Thank you.

01:32:36.160 --> 01:32:37.160
 Claire?

01:32:37.160 --> 01:32:49.480
 Good. Now, you're muted, there you go.

01:32:49.480 --> 01:32:54.200
 Can you clarify what Lieutenant Barron's just asked for 53?

01:32:54.200 --> 01:33:03.200
 What was -- The motion was to accept A, B, and C.

01:33:03.200 --> 01:33:10.560
 So if you're accepting A, B, and C, why would all of the above not be accepted if you're

01:33:10.560 --> 01:33:18.880
 -- if A, B, and C are correct and then all of the above is an option?

01:33:18.880 --> 01:33:21.760
 Question 53 is none of the above.

01:33:21.760 --> 01:33:22.760
 Oh, okay.

01:33:22.760 --> 01:33:23.760
 Never mind.

01:33:23.760 --> 01:33:24.760
 Then I was confused.

01:33:24.760 --> 01:33:25.760
 Sorry.

01:33:25.760 --> 01:33:28.760
 It's A, B, and C. Okay.

01:33:28.760 --> 01:33:41.160
 Now, next question 59, Mr. Weatherford again.

01:33:41.160 --> 01:33:42.160
 You're back.

01:33:42.160 --> 01:33:43.160
 I am back.

01:33:43.160 --> 01:33:51.040
 Hopefully I can make this one smoother for you guys.

01:33:51.040 --> 01:34:00.160
 59 is general order again, it's 401, specifically 401.5 bias-based policing.

01:34:00.160 --> 01:34:03.520
 I believe the answers are misrepresented in the material.

01:34:03.520 --> 01:34:09.800
 I believe answers B and C are inclusive to A and they should not be listed as separate

01:34:09.800 --> 01:34:12.800
 options and I'll read the questions.

01:34:12.800 --> 01:34:19.400
 The question is what are the supervisory responsibilities pertaining to bias-based policing?

01:34:19.400 --> 01:34:25.960
 The correct answer is keyed as D, all of the above, A says supervisors shall monitor those

01:34:25.960 --> 01:34:31.320
 individuals under their command for compliance with this order and shall handle any alleged

01:34:31.320 --> 01:34:39.000
 or observed violations, B is supervisors shall discuss and document the discussions, C is

01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:44.480
 supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violation, and of

01:34:44.480 --> 01:34:47.120
 course C is all of the above.

01:34:47.120 --> 01:34:55.560
 My argument here is that A is actually the header and B and C are bullet points listed

01:34:55.560 --> 01:34:57.280
 under that header.

01:34:57.280 --> 01:35:03.240
 A says that they should handle any alleged or observed violation and I would argue that

01:35:03.240 --> 01:35:10.740
 B and C is to discuss and document discussions and then investigate any violations should

01:35:10.740 --> 01:35:13.560
 be included in handling the investigations listed in A.

01:35:13.560 --> 01:35:22.840
 Okay, John do you have questions?

01:35:22.840 --> 01:35:41.480
 Can we go to the source material in 401.5 please?

01:35:41.480 --> 01:35:49.800
 The number A is the header there right under the bolder things and super responsibilities.

01:35:49.800 --> 01:35:59.000
 So small a is the same as b and the test questions?

01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:16.520
 And C are included as bullets under the header?

01:36:16.520 --> 01:36:26.600
 Let me ask the question Paul and I have the response so I know what it is, but B and C

01:36:26.600 --> 01:36:33.640
 are also correct answers, then the obvious correct answer is D. You can't separate any

01:36:33.640 --> 01:36:36.880
 of the three, right?

01:36:36.880 --> 01:36:43.040
 I see what you're saying but I think A should also either be an answer or it's a bad question

01:36:43.040 --> 01:36:46.440
 because there's all of the bullet points in there that aren't included also, but we're

01:36:46.440 --> 01:36:49.960
 going to include two bullet points under the header, it doesn't make sense to me.

01:36:49.960 --> 01:36:55.500
 But they are, the ones that are included are all correct.

01:36:55.500 --> 01:36:59.360
 So all the above would be the appropriate answer.

01:36:59.360 --> 01:37:04.880
 Think about that one for a second while I ask Barron's to address.

01:37:04.880 --> 01:37:14.360
 Yes sir, all three of those are included in the source material as the responsibilities

01:37:14.360 --> 01:37:19.320
 of a supervisor regardless of how they're broken up or bulleted, they're all in that

01:37:19.320 --> 01:37:25.960
 section as responsibilities.

01:37:25.960 --> 01:37:31.600
 John, questions?

01:37:31.600 --> 01:37:34.600
 No questions.

01:37:34.600 --> 01:37:41.260
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:37:41.260 --> 01:37:44.200
 Seeing none, John, motion?

01:37:44.200 --> 01:37:48.360
 I have a motion that we maintain the key.

01:37:48.360 --> 01:37:50.280
 I'll second that.

01:37:50.280 --> 01:37:52.040
 All in favor say aye.

01:37:52.040 --> 01:37:53.040
 Aye.

01:37:53.040 --> 01:37:57.960
 Sustain the key.

01:37:57.960 --> 01:38:02.760
 Next is question 75.

01:38:02.760 --> 01:38:19.560
 I'm actually going to withdraw my appeal.

01:38:19.560 --> 01:38:23.160
 Okay, consider it done.

01:38:23.160 --> 01:38:28.440
 Thank you, Officer Johnson.

01:38:28.440 --> 01:38:38.200
 Next is item 85, there are two of Sarah Keith and Travis Nicholas.

01:38:38.200 --> 01:38:44.640
 Sarah, I don't know if it's appropriate or inappropriate, but ladies first.

01:38:44.640 --> 01:38:49.400
 Sorry, that was a bad joke.

01:38:49.400 --> 01:38:51.520
 I apologize.

01:38:51.520 --> 01:38:55.680
 That's all right.

01:38:55.680 --> 01:39:00.200
 Before everybody's reference, I'll go ahead and read the question.

01:39:00.200 --> 01:39:04.960
 It stated, an individual's car breaks down in the middle of the road at night.

01:39:04.960 --> 01:39:09.640
 The automobile is just over the crest of a hill and is not immediately visible by traffic

01:39:09.640 --> 01:39:11.520
 moving in that lane.

01:39:11.520 --> 01:39:15.480
 The individual abandons the car in total disregard for the safety of others.

01:39:15.480 --> 01:39:19.960
 He does not turn on the automobile's warning flasher and makes no effort to signal other

01:39:19.960 --> 01:39:21.640
 motorists.

01:39:21.640 --> 01:39:26.140
 Another motorist drives over the hill and rams the rear of the disabled car.

01:39:26.140 --> 01:39:30.080
 The motorist is seriously injured, which is the most serious offense committed by the

01:39:30.080 --> 01:39:32.840
 operator of the disabled vehicle.

01:39:32.840 --> 01:39:42.560
 The options were A, reckless driving, B, illegal parking, C, aggravated assault, or D, criminal

01:39:42.560 --> 01:39:43.560
 mischief.

01:39:43.560 --> 01:39:51.520
 The first basis for the argument for my appeal would be under the source material that we

01:39:51.520 --> 01:39:53.360
 were given.

01:39:53.360 --> 01:40:00.960
 The source material included Texas Penal Code, including Section 2201, which is assault,

01:40:00.960 --> 01:40:08.120
 Section 2204, injury to a child, Section 3103, theft, Section 32.47, fraudulent destruction,

01:40:08.120 --> 01:40:16.160
 removal, or consummate of writing, and Chapter 49, intoxication and alcoholic beverage offenses.

01:40:16.160 --> 01:40:23.520
 Aggravated assault is Section 2202, which was not included in our source material.

01:40:23.520 --> 01:40:30.300
 The second basis for the appeal of this question is that there are too many assumptions that

01:40:30.300 --> 01:40:33.280
 must be made based on the scenario.

01:40:33.280 --> 01:40:35.880
 We don't know why the vehicle was disabled.

01:40:35.880 --> 01:40:40.280
 We don't know the type of roadway that this was on.

01:40:40.280 --> 01:40:45.480
 Both the reason why the vehicle was disabled could give explanation as to why the warning

01:40:45.480 --> 01:40:50.720
 hazards were not used and could give explanation as to why the vehicle wasn't moved out of

01:40:50.720 --> 01:40:51.720
 the roadway.

01:40:51.720 --> 01:41:09.360
 The other assumption is that why did he not make any attempt to notify or warn other drivers?

01:41:09.360 --> 01:41:12.680
 We don't know if he had a cell phone.

01:41:12.680 --> 01:41:16.760
 We assume most people do, but we don't know if he did.

01:41:16.760 --> 01:41:24.880
 We assume his level of intelligence that might give him ability to, or his level of comfort

01:41:24.880 --> 01:41:30.480
 in walking to a nearby house, he may not feel safe doing so.

01:41:30.480 --> 01:41:36.040
 There's really nothing in there that says why he didn't notify anybody.

01:41:36.040 --> 01:41:41.480
 Because there's too many things that need to be assumed for an officer to be able to

01:41:41.480 --> 01:41:44.400
 conclude that the action was reckless.

01:41:44.400 --> 01:41:49.160
 You don't even meet the elements of the offense for aggravated assault, which requires that

01:41:49.160 --> 01:41:58.700
 the state of mind for the suspect would have to be reckless.

01:41:58.700 --> 01:42:03.960
 And that would be the basis of my appeal.

01:42:03.960 --> 01:42:07.560
 Okay, thank you.

01:42:07.560 --> 01:42:08.560
 Nicholas?

01:42:08.560 --> 01:42:15.520
 Do you have anything to add to that?

01:42:15.520 --> 01:42:18.760
 Yes, sir.

01:42:18.760 --> 01:42:27.800
 I was assuming that this was coming from Section 22.01 for assault, and also included in there.

01:42:27.800 --> 01:42:30.840
 I'll just read it out.

01:42:30.840 --> 01:42:37.300
 So assault is A, a person commits an offense if the person, one, intentionally, knowingly,

01:42:37.300 --> 01:42:42.740
 or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse.

01:42:42.740 --> 01:42:49.920
 Number two, intentionally, or knowingly, threatens another with imminent bodily injury.

01:42:49.920 --> 01:43:03.200
 So I think this question negates to determine if the operator who left his vehicle, he

01:43:03.200 --> 01:43:10.040
 didn't threaten another person with any kind of imminent danger or, you know, bodily injury.

01:43:10.040 --> 01:43:17.680
 So there was no, we're missing a threat.

01:43:17.680 --> 01:43:22.840
 Okay.

01:43:22.840 --> 01:43:27.040
 So are you saying that aggravated assault has to include a threat?

01:43:27.040 --> 01:43:33.280
 Is that what you're saying, Officer Nicholas?

01:43:33.280 --> 01:43:41.880
 One second.

01:43:41.880 --> 01:43:49.680
 So from my understanding, the assault itself has to have the threat.

01:43:49.680 --> 01:43:57.480
 The aggravated is including a weapon, which makes the assault an aggravated assault.

01:43:57.480 --> 01:44:05.800
 So without a threat, as the penal code states, we don't even have a threat with the scenario

01:44:05.800 --> 01:44:07.320
 that we're presented with.

01:44:07.320 --> 01:44:16.120
 There's no threat.

01:44:16.120 --> 01:44:33.480
 May we go to the source material, please?

01:44:33.480 --> 01:44:47.000
 Okay.

01:44:47.000 --> 01:45:13.160
 Can we get, Chairman Ramsey, is it too early to ask for the police response?

01:45:13.160 --> 01:45:19.360
 No, I was giving you time to read.

01:45:19.360 --> 01:45:21.360
 Yes, sir.

01:45:21.360 --> 01:45:26.600
 There is sufficient information contained in this question to direct you to the correct

01:45:26.600 --> 01:45:27.600
 answer.

01:45:27.600 --> 01:45:29.480
 It is the middle of the night.

01:45:29.480 --> 01:45:32.040
 So you know that it's dark.

01:45:32.040 --> 01:45:37.880
 It's just over the crest of the hill and not immediately visible by traffic.

01:45:37.880 --> 01:45:44.480
 And that person abandons the vehicle in total disregard for the safety of others.

01:45:44.480 --> 01:45:50.520
 That to me, I think to any reasonable person would be considered reckless.

01:45:50.520 --> 01:45:56.040
 The actions of that person leaving the car in the roadway constitutes the assault.

01:45:56.040 --> 01:46:01.400
 They recklessly caused the bodily injury when another car crashed into them.

01:46:01.400 --> 01:46:03.920
 There is no requirement for a threat to be present.

01:46:03.920 --> 01:46:08.920
 There's no and after that sentence, intentionally knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury

01:46:08.920 --> 01:46:11.720
 to another, including the person's spouse.

01:46:11.720 --> 01:46:14.680
 That's the definition of assault.

01:46:14.680 --> 01:46:22.080
 The aggravated assault comes in with the presence of serious bodily injury or the use or threatened

01:46:22.080 --> 01:46:24.360
 use of a deadly weapon.

01:46:24.360 --> 01:46:28.960
 Even without the aggravated assault being in the source material, the best answer is

01:46:28.960 --> 01:46:35.560
 still assault.

01:46:35.560 --> 01:46:38.520
 One of the objections was that aggravated assault is 2201.

01:46:38.520 --> 01:46:46.220
 It's not in the source material, but neither are any of those other choices.

01:46:46.220 --> 01:46:48.240
 Illegal parking is in the transportation code.

01:46:48.240 --> 01:46:52.200
 Reckless driving is a section of the penal code that's not in the source material, as

01:46:52.200 --> 01:46:54.800
 well as criminal misdemeanor.

01:46:54.800 --> 01:46:58.980
 I think assault is the best answer, which is the key answer.

01:46:58.980 --> 01:47:02.800
 I didn't have the source material.

01:47:02.800 --> 01:47:09.040
 Does the source material, and this may be something we have to dig for, did the source

01:47:09.040 --> 01:47:21.120
 material specifically say Texas Penal Code 22.01 and 22.02, or did it say Texas Penal

01:47:21.120 --> 01:47:25.280
 Code 20, Chapter 22?

01:47:25.280 --> 01:47:26.280
 It says 22.01.

01:47:26.280 --> 01:47:27.280
 Assault is in 2201.

01:47:27.280 --> 01:47:28.280
 Aggravated assault is 2202.

01:47:28.280 --> 01:47:29.280
 I'm sorry.

01:47:29.280 --> 01:47:30.920
 In the source material that they were studying, 2202 is not included.

01:47:30.920 --> 01:47:31.920
 Correct?

01:47:31.920 --> 01:47:32.920
 Correct.

01:47:32.920 --> 01:47:33.920
 Okay.

01:47:33.920 --> 01:47:36.920
 Can we go back to 2201 again, please?

01:47:36.920 --> 01:47:51.920
 Sure.

01:47:51.920 --> 01:48:20.640
 So, what I'm looking for, I'm not sure what John's looking for.

01:48:20.640 --> 01:48:34.820
 In 2201, Lieutenant Barron's, where does it specifically say aggravated assault?

01:48:34.820 --> 01:48:37.680
 It does not.

01:48:37.680 --> 01:48:44.400
 To have an aggravated assault, you have to have an assault as defined by 2201 and serious

01:48:44.400 --> 01:48:57.200
 bodily injury or the use of a deadly weapon.

01:48:57.200 --> 01:49:01.200
 The aggravated is just a higher level of assault.

01:49:01.200 --> 01:49:07.000
 It's a qualifier of the level of assault.

01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:11.360
 I'm having difficulty making that stretch or that connection.

01:49:11.360 --> 01:49:14.940
 Can you explain that again for me, please?

01:49:14.940 --> 01:49:19.560
 Aggravated, what makes an aggravated versus just assault?

01:49:19.560 --> 01:49:26.360
 An aggravated assault is you have to have an assault first under 2201.

01:49:26.360 --> 01:49:31.520
 To make it aggravated, a deadly weapon has to be used or threatened to be used, or there

01:49:31.520 --> 01:49:35.520
 has to be serious bodily injury.

01:49:35.520 --> 01:49:39.720
 All right.

01:49:39.720 --> 01:49:53.040
 So, in using a vehicle, how do you get from 2201 to having a vehicle, making it aggravated?

01:49:53.040 --> 01:49:55.640
 I'm stretching for that connection.

01:49:55.640 --> 01:50:01.520
 The vehicle, it's the conduct of the operator of the vehicle leaving the vehicle in the

01:50:01.520 --> 01:50:04.080
 roadway that caused the injury.

01:50:04.080 --> 01:50:06.240
 That is the assault.

01:50:06.240 --> 01:50:08.240
 I can see that.

01:50:08.240 --> 01:50:09.800
 Okay?

01:50:09.800 --> 01:50:14.920
 Where it gets to be aggravated is because there was serious bodily injury, and that

01:50:14.920 --> 01:50:19.280
 information is in the question.

01:50:19.280 --> 01:50:22.440
 So let's go back to the question again.

01:50:22.440 --> 01:50:27.680
 We're just going to walk through it a little bit here because there are some holes in this

01:50:27.680 --> 01:50:28.680
 description.

01:50:28.680 --> 01:50:35.440
 It says an individual's car breaks down in the middle of the road at night.

01:50:35.440 --> 01:50:42.260
 The automobile is just over the crest of a hill and is not immediately visible by traffic

01:50:42.260 --> 01:50:44.520
 moving in that lane.

01:50:44.520 --> 01:50:55.200
 So the individual abandons the car, and then this is the part that's, I don't know, somebody's

01:50:55.200 --> 01:50:59.200
 making this determination in total disregard for the safety of others.

01:50:59.200 --> 01:51:15.920
 I don't know, if I'm, on a trip from here to Austin, I'm driving with my 24s on my SUV.

01:51:15.920 --> 01:51:21.320
 I have a blowout, and I have to pull over to the side of the road, and there's no light

01:51:21.320 --> 01:51:23.120
 out there at all.

01:51:23.120 --> 01:51:29.020
 I'm on the, I mean, I didn't intend for it to break down, but I can't say.

01:51:29.020 --> 01:51:33.220
 I did it to intentionally hurt someone.

01:51:33.220 --> 01:51:36.700
 I had a breakdown.

01:51:36.700 --> 01:51:44.320
 So I'm just, I'm struggling with a person that has a breakdown in a difficult situation

01:51:44.320 --> 01:51:54.880
 making that, what's the word, the modifier, aggravated assault.

01:51:54.880 --> 01:52:00.200
 Well and to respond to that briefly is, you said yourself, you pulled to the side of the

01:52:00.200 --> 01:52:01.200
 road.

01:52:01.200 --> 01:52:02.200
 Yes.

01:52:02.200 --> 01:52:04.800
 You didn't leave your car in the middle of the road.

01:52:04.800 --> 01:52:05.800
 Right.

01:52:05.800 --> 01:52:11.600
 Without a shoulder, there's overpasses where there is nowhere to pull over.

01:52:11.600 --> 01:52:16.360
 And that's not stated in the question, what type of roadway that this was on.

01:52:16.360 --> 01:52:18.400
 It does say the middle of the road.

01:52:18.400 --> 01:52:25.200
 If you have a breakdown, if my car just stops, then you don't really have a choice.

01:52:25.200 --> 01:52:26.200
 Yeah.

01:52:26.200 --> 01:52:32.240
 If your axle falls out of your car, you can't move it to the shoulder.

01:52:32.240 --> 01:52:38.160
 So I'm not fighting you, Lieutenant Barron, I'm not fighting you, I'm just, I'm just struggling

01:52:38.160 --> 01:52:39.160
 with the example.

01:52:39.160 --> 01:52:46.040
 The next sentence in the description, in the scenario that they're giving, says they didn't

01:52:46.040 --> 01:52:53.160
 turn on the warning flashers or make no effort to signal other motorists by using something

01:52:53.160 --> 01:53:00.200
 like flares or flashlights or anything like that.

01:53:00.200 --> 01:53:07.080
 That's the next sentence in the descriptor, which would continue to describe just leaving

01:53:07.080 --> 01:53:09.520
 it in the middle of the road.

01:53:09.520 --> 01:53:21.520
 I mean, if you were then trying by using flashers and flares and/or flares, at least you were

01:53:21.520 --> 01:53:27.240
 trying to warn people and that might take the aggravated assault out of it, even though

01:53:27.240 --> 01:53:30.800
 it happened and there was serious injury.

01:53:30.800 --> 01:53:41.240
 But it's in the description of the question, of the situation in the question.

01:53:41.240 --> 01:53:49.120
 So if your axle fell out and you didn't do anything about it, didn't turn on your flashers,

01:53:49.120 --> 01:53:57.520
 didn't do any flares or try to signal to somebody from the side of the road or anything, what

01:53:57.520 --> 01:54:09.680
 would be the most serious charge that could be elicited that might be aggravated assault?

01:54:09.680 --> 01:54:18.400
 >> May I add one point, please?

01:54:18.400 --> 01:54:19.400
 >> Yes.

01:54:19.400 --> 01:54:20.400
 Travis?

01:54:20.400 --> 01:54:21.400
 >> Yes, sir.

01:54:21.400 --> 01:54:22.400
 >> Sit down.

01:54:22.400 --> 01:54:23.400
 I'll get back to you next.

01:54:23.400 --> 01:54:24.400
 I saw your hand.

01:54:24.400 --> 01:54:28.120
 Go ahead, Travis.

01:54:28.120 --> 01:54:37.920
 >> So as Lieutenant Baron stated that the other three answers were not a part of the

01:54:37.920 --> 01:54:42.160
 source material, then SOAT 2 is true with aggravated assault.

01:54:42.160 --> 01:54:47.920
 That's not a part of the material as well because the material starts at 22.01, which

01:54:47.920 --> 01:54:49.680
 is just assault.

01:54:49.680 --> 01:54:53.960
 So you have to have 22.02 to get to your aggravated assault.

01:54:53.960 --> 01:55:00.080
 So 22.02 is not source material as well.

01:55:00.080 --> 01:55:04.480
 >> Sarah, thank you.

01:55:04.480 --> 01:55:10.640
 >> That was the same point I was going to make, is that if the other answers aren't

01:55:10.640 --> 01:55:15.520
 valid because they weren't source material penal code, then aggravated assault isn't

01:55:15.520 --> 01:55:18.960
 valid either because it's not source material penal code.

01:55:18.960 --> 01:55:25.240
 The specific 22.01 was listed, 22.02 was not listed.

01:55:25.240 --> 01:55:31.560
 They did list an entire Chapter 49, which they could have done an entire Chapter 22,

01:55:31.560 --> 01:55:32.560
 but they didn't.

01:55:32.560 --> 01:55:43.960
 They specifically listed 22.01, not 22.01 and 22.02, and not 22.02 by itself.

01:55:43.960 --> 01:55:54.920
 >> So both of you are saying that given what you've just said, B, illegal parking is the

01:55:54.920 --> 01:55:56.160
 correct answer.

01:55:56.160 --> 01:55:58.160
 Is that correct?

01:55:58.160 --> 01:56:01.200
 >> Yes, sir.

01:56:01.200 --> 01:56:02.960
 >> Correct.

01:56:02.960 --> 01:56:13.520
 >> That's the answer that I selected, but if none of them are source material, then

01:56:13.520 --> 01:56:18.880
 so true as with aggravated assault, that's not source material either, but the answer

01:56:18.880 --> 01:56:22.960
 that I selected was illegal parking.

01:56:22.960 --> 01:56:36.800
 >> Lieutenant Barron, is it true then that none of these are listed in 22.01, none of

01:56:36.800 --> 01:56:40.440
 these answers?

01:56:40.440 --> 01:56:41.440
 >> Aggravated assault is in 22.02.

01:56:41.440 --> 01:56:42.440
 >> Yes, sir.

01:56:42.440 --> 01:56:47.200
 >> Assault is in 22.01.

01:56:47.200 --> 01:56:49.720
 The aggravated is just the level of the assault.

01:56:49.720 --> 01:56:55.280
 I would submit that assault is still the best answer of whatever category it is, and assault

01:56:55.280 --> 01:57:01.320
 is in 22.01.

01:57:01.320 --> 01:57:05.360
 You have to have an assault first to have an aggravated assault.

01:57:05.360 --> 01:57:14.680
 >> But you have to have a weapon, though.

01:57:14.680 --> 01:57:16.680
 You don't have to have a weapon?

01:57:16.680 --> 01:57:17.680
 >> No, sir.

01:57:17.680 --> 01:57:18.680
 Can we pull up 22.02?

01:57:18.680 --> 01:57:23.320
 >> But the way you have aggravated assault listed is separated the same way that sexual

01:57:23.320 --> 01:57:26.200
 assault differentiates from regular assault.

01:57:26.200 --> 01:57:31.520
 Each of them have their own section.

01:57:31.520 --> 01:57:38.640
 Sexual assault is its own section, aggravated assault is its own section, and it goes into

01:57:38.640 --> 01:57:43.160
 the specifics of what makes an aggravated assault an aggravated assault.

01:57:43.160 --> 01:57:45.760
 It's a completely different charge.

01:57:45.760 --> 01:57:52.320
 It's not the same way that theft is its own section with different levels of theft that

01:57:52.320 --> 01:57:59.180
 make it Class C, B, A, and so on all the way up to higher levels of felony.

01:57:59.180 --> 01:58:02.640
 Those are all within the same section of theft.

01:58:02.640 --> 01:58:09.840
 But for aggravated assault and assault, they are their own sections.

01:58:09.840 --> 01:58:14.280
 >> Can we scroll down to 22.02?

01:58:14.280 --> 01:58:20.680
 >> Well, if it's not source material, if it's not listed in the source material that we

01:58:20.680 --> 01:58:23.640
 approved, then it's a moot point.

01:58:23.640 --> 01:58:24.640
 >> Yes, sir.

01:58:24.640 --> 01:58:31.480
 >> I mean, I know what you -- I mean, I understand.

01:58:31.480 --> 01:58:41.200
 The term aggravated then makes it a different level and makes it a wrong answer.

01:58:41.200 --> 01:58:46.120
 So assault -- so if you're looking at these and you're thinking, "Oh, well, it would be

01:58:46.120 --> 01:58:52.400
 an assault, but it's not an aggravated assault," so that's a wrong answer, which one of these

01:58:52.400 --> 01:59:00.360
 are the right answer as a test taker, you'd look at it that way.

01:59:00.360 --> 01:59:13.880
 So, you know, if aggravated -- the word aggravated nullifies answer C, because if it were just

01:59:13.880 --> 01:59:17.960
 assault, it would be the right answer.

01:59:17.960 --> 01:59:26.360
 Aggravated assault brings in a whole different set of factors into it.

01:59:26.360 --> 01:59:43.280
 So if aggravated assault is not the correct answer, which is the most serious offense

01:59:43.280 --> 01:59:54.720
 minus aggravated assault, Mr. Barron -- Lieutenant Barron's.

01:59:54.720 --> 01:59:58.400
 >> I would still say that assault is the best answer.

01:59:58.400 --> 02:00:01.400
 >> But aggravated assault is different from assault.

02:00:01.400 --> 02:00:04.700
 >> You have to have an assault to have had an aggravated assault.

02:00:04.700 --> 02:00:09.120
 >> But you don't have to have an aggravated assault.

02:00:09.120 --> 02:00:16.160
 See, that brings it to a whole new level as an answer.

02:00:16.160 --> 02:00:20.680
 An assault and an aggravated assault are not the same thing.

02:00:20.680 --> 02:00:24.400
 You can have an assault without it being aggravated assault, correct?

02:00:24.400 --> 02:00:26.060
 >> That is correct.

02:00:26.060 --> 02:00:32.920
 And that's still a higher charge than any of those others.

02:00:32.920 --> 02:00:41.760
 >> You're making life difficult for us.

02:00:41.760 --> 02:00:44.760
 The company is making life difficult for us.

02:00:44.760 --> 02:00:48.960
 >> It's difficult to write questions out of a penal code, because everything is going

02:00:48.960 --> 02:00:55.000
 to be a hypothetical.

02:00:55.000 --> 02:01:07.600
 >> John, my thought -- my thought on this, and I guess I'll make this in form of a motion,

02:01:07.600 --> 02:01:21.920
 if I may, is that we accept B and C. That way, if the test takers thought, oh, it's

02:01:21.920 --> 02:01:26.940
 an assault, it might not be aggravated, but it's an assault, so we'll put that one as

02:01:26.940 --> 02:01:36.400
 the worst -- but also, if you thought aggravated assault -- it's not aggravated, so therefore

02:01:36.400 --> 02:01:41.040
 it's got to be one of the other three.

02:01:41.040 --> 02:01:53.080
 >> I'm not sure which one is the worst of the other three.

02:01:53.080 --> 02:01:54.080
 >> So --

02:01:54.080 --> 02:01:55.960
 >> My motion would be to accept B and C.

02:01:55.960 --> 02:01:56.960
 >> Okay.

02:01:56.960 --> 02:01:59.840
 I will second that motion, and then we'll have some discussion.

02:01:59.840 --> 02:02:00.840
 >> Okay.

02:02:00.840 --> 02:02:13.400
 Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:02:13.400 --> 02:02:14.400
 Okay.

02:02:14.400 --> 02:02:15.400
 Discuss.

02:02:15.400 --> 02:02:27.840
 >> Like you were saying, Lieutenant Behrens, you know, you're dealing with a lot of hypotheticals,

02:02:27.840 --> 02:02:36.840
 and I'm just remembering my experience on the highway between here in Austin and getting

02:02:36.840 --> 02:02:43.200
 stranded, and I don't remember turning my lights on because in the middle of the night

02:02:43.200 --> 02:02:50.320
 I didn't really want to draw a lot of attention to myself.

02:02:50.320 --> 02:02:58.240
 I don't carry a weapon, so I'm defenseless, and so I'm in the middle of nowhere with a

02:02:58.240 --> 02:03:09.640
 flat tire, and so you kind of go into survival mode, and so I'm trying to -- I'm trying not

02:03:09.640 --> 02:03:17.640
 to rely exclusively on my experience, and I'm also -- apparently I'm very limited in

02:03:17.640 --> 02:03:25.200
 my understanding of the word assault, so I'll have to defer to your experience, but I thought

02:03:25.200 --> 02:03:29.920
 you had to have a weapon in order for it to go up from just assault to aggravated assault,

02:03:29.920 --> 02:03:34.120
 so apparently my understanding is tarnished, limited.

02:03:34.120 --> 02:03:38.360
 So I would go with your two, Daryl, B and C.

02:03:38.360 --> 02:03:49.400
 Okay, I'm not going to change, but I do have a question.

02:03:49.400 --> 02:03:53.240
 Maybe it's just for me to know.

02:03:53.240 --> 02:04:02.660
 Would a vehicle be -- could a vehicle be considered a weapon?

02:04:02.660 --> 02:04:05.240
 If that question is for me, then yes, certainly.

02:04:05.240 --> 02:04:06.240
 Okay.

02:04:06.240 --> 02:04:10.920
 I don't know if anybody wants to answer it, but I -- so it could -- so there is the presence

02:04:10.920 --> 02:04:17.240
 of a weapon, technically, because there's a vehicle there that's in the way.

02:04:17.240 --> 02:04:22.600
 A wall could be a weapon if you put it out in front of a road and somebody drove into

02:04:22.600 --> 02:04:23.600
 it, correct?

02:04:23.600 --> 02:04:24.600
 A what?

02:04:24.600 --> 02:04:32.040
 A wall, or a pole, or anything that you would -- a sewing machine that you could drive into

02:04:32.040 --> 02:04:37.120
 could be a weapon, but that's a little far-fetched.

02:04:37.120 --> 02:04:38.120
 So --

02:04:38.120 --> 02:04:40.920
 Officer Keith has a question, a comment.

02:04:40.920 --> 02:04:41.920
 Yes, ma'am.

02:04:41.920 --> 02:04:48.840
 I think one thing that we learn in our training is that anything has to be evaluated on the

02:04:48.840 --> 02:04:55.360
 way that it's used, and if you use a vehicle as a weapon, you would have to drive it at

02:04:55.360 --> 02:04:59.120
 somebody or direct it to do something.

02:04:59.120 --> 02:05:03.240
 That car, there by itself, was not being used as a weapon.

02:05:03.240 --> 02:05:04.240
 Okay.

02:05:04.240 --> 02:05:08.400
 No intention for the vehicle to hurt anybody.

02:05:08.400 --> 02:05:11.400
 Okay.

02:05:11.400 --> 02:05:13.360
 Is that a consensus agreement?

02:05:13.360 --> 02:05:14.360
 Okay.

02:05:14.360 --> 02:05:27.080
 So, the motion on the floor is to accept B and C. There's no other -- there was no other

02:05:27.080 --> 02:05:30.440
 discussion, all in favor of the motion, say aye.

02:05:30.440 --> 02:05:31.440
 Aye.

02:05:31.440 --> 02:05:32.440
 Opposed?

02:05:32.440 --> 02:05:33.440
 Okay.

02:05:33.440 --> 02:05:49.840
 B and C. Next is question 88, and there's two there, Jared and Trattis.

02:05:49.840 --> 02:05:55.640
 Jared, are you still there with us?

02:05:55.640 --> 02:05:57.080
 Yes, sir, I'm here.

02:05:57.080 --> 02:06:01.760
 We'll let you go first since you haven't been here in a while.

02:06:01.760 --> 02:06:02.760
 Okay.

02:06:02.760 --> 02:06:05.760
 So, would you like me to read the question?

02:06:05.760 --> 02:06:12.000
 We have the question -- we have the question in front of us, so I don't think it's necessary.

02:06:12.000 --> 02:06:13.000
 Okay.

02:06:13.000 --> 02:06:23.200
 So, on this particular question, after reading the excerpt, it asks, "Jack may properly be

02:06:23.200 --> 02:06:31.360
 charged with -- I believe injury to a child and criminally negligent homicide would be

02:06:31.360 --> 02:06:43.600
 the appropriate charges," plural, "for the simple fact of injury to a child is for serious

02:06:43.600 --> 02:06:49.840
 bodily injury or death, and the culpable mental state is going to be intentionally, knowingly

02:06:49.840 --> 02:06:54.780
 or recklessly or with criminal negligence, by act of intentionally, knowingly or recklessly

02:06:54.780 --> 02:07:02.200
 by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual or disabled individual, serious bodily injury,

02:07:02.200 --> 02:07:25.520
 serious mental deficiency, impairment or injury, or bottle injury, or likewise, on the other,

02:07:25.520 --> 02:07:31.640
 for criminal negligent homicide, the person is acting with criminal negligence, okay,

02:07:31.640 --> 02:07:36.800
 or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the

02:07:36.800 --> 02:07:44.000
 result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

02:07:44.000 --> 02:07:47.760
 that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.

02:07:47.760 --> 02:07:54.200
 The result must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes

02:07:54.200 --> 02:07:59.640
 a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under

02:07:59.640 --> 02:08:05.080
 all circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

02:08:05.080 --> 02:08:14.120
 So on that particular one, I had put, "Criminal negligent homicide," because I believe that

02:08:14.120 --> 02:08:20.000
 that actually would be the offense, because again, it's saying what may he be charged

02:08:20.000 --> 02:08:25.280
 with, he may be charged with either offense.

02:08:25.280 --> 02:08:32.760
 >> I think it's negligent either way.

02:08:32.760 --> 02:08:33.760
 >> Okay.

02:08:33.760 --> 02:08:38.160
 I'll hold my question for just one second.

02:08:38.160 --> 02:08:43.960
 Travis, you want to add anything to that?

02:08:43.960 --> 02:08:48.320
 >> Yes, sir.

02:08:48.320 --> 02:08:59.440
 >> Mine is pretty much on the same line as Officer Ray.

02:08:59.440 --> 02:09:11.780
 What I would add to that is the criminal negligence is more along the lines that they -- Jack

02:09:11.780 --> 02:09:16.160
 and/or Jill did not -- they neglected the need of the child.

02:09:16.160 --> 02:09:21.960
 So it wasn't, you know, and therefore, that's why I select the criminal negligence, because

02:09:21.960 --> 02:09:26.160
 they neglected whatever it was that, you know, the child needed.

02:09:26.160 --> 02:09:31.920
 In this case, I think it was saying get into the emergency room.

02:09:31.920 --> 02:09:39.040
 Then also, my second point is that I think when I discussed this with Lieutenant Barron's

02:09:39.040 --> 02:09:43.320
 initially, we had a conversation about it.

02:09:43.320 --> 02:09:50.120
 And I think the response was, and I'm paraphrasing that, injury to a child is a higher charge

02:09:50.120 --> 02:09:54.400
 than criminal negligence homicide, which I do agree.

02:09:54.400 --> 02:10:00.840
 But as a, you know, as a patrol officer, I'm not necessarily responsible for knowing, at

02:10:00.840 --> 02:10:06.760
 the time I'm charging somebody, which charge is going to be higher or, you know, less than

02:10:06.760 --> 02:10:08.560
 the other.

02:10:08.560 --> 02:10:11.440
 We're not required to make that determination.

02:10:11.440 --> 02:10:18.920
 We're required to make a charge that fits the situation, and that will more than likely,

02:10:18.920 --> 02:10:21.440
 for lack of better words, stick.

02:10:21.440 --> 02:10:28.080
 So just by saying that injury to a child is a higher charge should be, you know, the correct

02:10:28.080 --> 02:10:29.080
 answer.

02:10:29.080 --> 02:10:35.240
 I don't -- you know, we've never been trained that stick with the higher charge.

02:10:35.240 --> 02:10:44.080
 Okay, let's do that first.

02:10:44.080 --> 02:11:00.080
 >> I'm sorry, sir, did you ask for the Department of Response?

02:11:00.080 --> 02:11:01.080
 >> I did.

02:11:01.080 --> 02:11:02.080
 >> Yes, sir.

02:11:02.080 --> 02:11:08.360
 >> Injury to a child is specifically written to protect child victims.

02:11:08.360 --> 02:11:13.600
 That charge in the situation as described is a first-degree felony.

02:11:13.600 --> 02:11:18.960
 Criminally negligent homicide is a state jail felony, which is a much lower charge.

02:11:18.960 --> 02:11:29.540
 And it doesn't have a specific reference to protecting a child or an at-risk population.

02:11:29.540 --> 02:11:35.040
 One thing that Officer Nicholas mentioned is that as a patrol officer, this is a test

02:11:35.040 --> 02:11:47.440
 to be a sergeant, and sergeants are expected to know the proper charges to file.

02:11:47.440 --> 02:11:51.480
 >> Okay.

02:11:51.480 --> 02:11:58.240
 Questions, John, of any other parties involved?

02:11:58.240 --> 02:12:14.440
 So in the source material, did we mainly reference the injury to a child or criminally negligent

02:12:14.440 --> 02:12:15.440
 homicide?

02:12:15.440 --> 02:12:21.040
 >> 2204, I'm sorry, was that question for me?

02:12:21.040 --> 02:12:23.920
 >> For whomever, I'm sorry.

02:12:23.920 --> 02:12:30.160
 >> I'll have a last edit, 2204 is in the source material, and criminally negligent homicide

02:12:30.160 --> 02:12:34.120
 is in Chapter 19, which is not.

02:12:34.120 --> 02:12:39.080
 >> So criminally negligent homicide was not part of the source material?

02:12:39.080 --> 02:12:41.480
 >> It was not.

02:12:41.480 --> 02:12:42.480
 >> Okay.

02:12:42.480 --> 02:12:43.840
 Thank you.

02:12:43.840 --> 02:12:49.120
 >> Can I add something, Mr. Gerard Ray?

02:12:49.120 --> 02:12:50.120
 >> Yes, sir.

02:12:50.120 --> 02:12:56.440
 >> Well, Lieutenant Barron's just mentioned something a second ago that it was a first

02:12:56.440 --> 02:13:03.320
 degree or second degree felony, however, with injury to a child, it's also a state jail

02:13:03.320 --> 02:13:09.240
 felony whenever the person acts with criminal negligence and by omission.

02:13:09.240 --> 02:13:19.800
 So by definition, it should be either answer.

02:13:19.800 --> 02:13:21.680
 Mr. Ray, this is John Baines.

02:13:21.680 --> 02:13:33.600
 I was going to ask you, so when given the study materials, the injury to a child was

02:13:33.600 --> 02:13:41.640
 specifically given, but criminally negligent homicide, because of your knowledge and profession,

02:13:41.640 --> 02:13:46.640
 you knew that that was an option, but it was not directly in the source materials, was

02:13:46.640 --> 02:13:47.640
 it not?

02:13:47.640 --> 02:13:48.640
 >> That's correct.

02:13:48.640 --> 02:13:49.640
 >> Okay.

02:13:49.640 --> 02:13:50.640
 Thank you.

02:13:50.640 --> 02:13:56.240
 >> And that's why I'd pick the other one on aggravated assault versus illegal parking.

02:13:56.240 --> 02:13:58.880
 >> All right.

02:13:58.880 --> 02:14:08.380
 So you know, the question I was going to ask you a minute ago, I'm going to come back and

02:14:08.380 --> 02:14:13.040
 ask you, of the four choices --

02:14:13.040 --> 02:14:15.120
 >> Yes, sir.

02:14:15.120 --> 02:14:19.920
 >> Which is the best answer, best?

02:14:19.920 --> 02:14:27.320
 >> I don't think it's the best answer, because it's asking what he may be charged with.

02:14:27.320 --> 02:14:33.040
 >> Which one is the best answer of those four?

02:14:33.040 --> 02:14:39.120
 >> I don't think there is one.

02:14:39.120 --> 02:14:52.000
 If injury to a child is a felony and a criminally negligent homicide is a state, I'm assuming

02:14:52.000 --> 02:14:55.160
 that that would make it a federal-type -- I mean --

02:14:55.160 --> 02:14:56.160
 >> No, sir.

02:14:56.160 --> 02:15:01.000
 They're both going to be state, and the way that I actually see this is they're both done

02:15:01.000 --> 02:15:06.440
 with criminal negligence, so they're both going to be a state jail felony.

02:15:06.440 --> 02:15:14.840
 They did not intentionally or knowingly kill this kid.

02:15:14.840 --> 02:15:25.600
 >> So, Travis, I'll ask you the same question.

02:15:25.600 --> 02:15:32.480
 Which do you think is the best answer?

02:15:32.480 --> 02:15:38.800
 To get the biggest bang for your buck, so to speak.

02:15:38.800 --> 02:15:39.800
 >> Right.

02:15:39.800 --> 02:15:46.840
 So, again, and we kind of counsel back and forth on this, and, you know, the question

02:15:46.840 --> 02:15:52.880
 states which one may he be charged with, and, again, that's -- I mean, I feel that it was

02:15:52.880 --> 02:15:57.120
 a criminal negligent homicide.

02:15:57.120 --> 02:16:04.440
 And then also, if I may, with all due respect, when Lieutenant Manz and I sat in office and

02:16:04.440 --> 02:16:10.320
 discussed this same question, Lieutenant Manz looked it up to find out which one had the

02:16:10.320 --> 02:16:12.520
 higher charge on the computer.

02:16:12.520 --> 02:16:18.440
 So I -- at the same time, if I'm a patrol officer -- and that's simply what I do.

02:16:18.440 --> 02:16:22.960
 Anytime I charge anybody with any offense, I get back and I do my report, and I look

02:16:22.960 --> 02:16:28.240
 it up on, you know, to make sure I'm doing the right offense, and that's exactly what

02:16:28.240 --> 02:16:32.800
 we did, and that's how we knew which one was the higher charge, injured to a child, because

02:16:32.800 --> 02:16:41.520
 we looked it up on the computer to determine which one was the higher charge.

02:16:41.520 --> 02:16:52.080
 >> John, any thoughts?

02:16:52.080 --> 02:16:58.320
 >> My thoughts are -- my hat's off to the ladies and gentlemen that do this for a living.

02:16:58.320 --> 02:17:07.440
 I would have thought that criminally negligent homicide had a higher penal code than injury

02:17:07.440 --> 02:17:08.440
 to a child.

02:17:08.440 --> 02:17:16.440
 I'm learning something all the time, so I didn't realize that was the more -- the more

02:17:16.440 --> 02:17:21.520
 punitive of the charges.

02:17:21.520 --> 02:17:27.360
 But I'm stuck, though, because in the source material, the source material was injured

02:17:27.360 --> 02:17:34.680
 to a child and not criminally negligent homicide, so I'm almost wanting to just stick with that,

02:17:34.680 --> 02:17:38.240
 but I hadn't decided yet.

02:17:38.240 --> 02:17:41.240
 Is where I am, Mr. Chairman.

02:17:41.240 --> 02:17:42.240
 >> Okay.

02:17:42.240 --> 02:17:45.240
 Time to decide.

02:17:45.240 --> 02:17:47.160
 >> Okay.

02:17:47.160 --> 02:17:53.600
 I'm going to -- I'm going to sustain the key, is my motion.

02:17:53.600 --> 02:17:57.960
 >> I'll second it.

02:17:57.960 --> 02:18:00.000
 I can live with that.

02:18:00.000 --> 02:18:01.280
 I can see both ways.

02:18:01.280 --> 02:18:04.200
 Travis, Jared, I hope you understand.

02:18:04.200 --> 02:18:05.200
 I can see both ways.

02:18:05.200 --> 02:18:11.360
 I see your point, but it's what we've got in front of us, and I think that that's the

02:18:11.360 --> 02:18:12.360
 problem.

02:18:12.360 --> 02:18:16.240
 So I will -- I will second your motion.

02:18:16.240 --> 02:18:22.760
 So all in favor of sustaining the key, say, "Aye."

02:18:22.760 --> 02:18:24.160
 >> Aye.

02:18:24.160 --> 02:18:28.120
 >> Next is question 92.

02:18:28.120 --> 02:18:29.120
 Paul.

02:18:29.120 --> 02:18:30.620
 Where's Paul?

02:18:30.620 --> 02:18:33.120
 There he is.

02:18:33.120 --> 02:18:40.800
 >> Sorry, I'm unmuted now, I think.

02:18:40.800 --> 02:18:48.280
 We're on to question 92, is that correct?

02:18:48.280 --> 02:18:50.400
 >> Yes, sir.

02:18:50.400 --> 02:18:55.880
 >> Let me turn my volume up here.

02:18:55.880 --> 02:18:57.640
 All right.

02:18:57.640 --> 02:19:04.640
 Question 92 states the correct answer -- let me read the scenario.

02:19:04.640 --> 02:19:10.720
 So it's Roy was an intoxicated -- Roy was intoxicated beyond the legal limit.

02:19:10.720 --> 02:19:14.120
 He failed to bring his vehicle to a stop.

02:19:14.120 --> 02:19:16.960
 The vehicle crashed through the window of a retail store.

02:19:16.960 --> 02:19:23.000
 Mary, a customer in the store, was struck by the vehicle and suffered a broken arm.

02:19:23.000 --> 02:19:26.840
 Which of the following best describes the offense which Roy, the driver of the vehicle,

02:19:26.840 --> 02:19:28.880
 has committed?

02:19:28.880 --> 02:19:34.480
 My argument is that the source material is not included in any of these answers.

02:19:34.480 --> 02:19:38.100
 So they're all incorrect.

02:19:38.100 --> 02:19:45.520
 The first answer is A, terroristic threat, B, intoxication, assault, and criminal mischief,

02:19:45.520 --> 02:19:52.640
 C, reckless damage and destruction, and intoxication, assault, and D, assault and burglary.

02:19:52.640 --> 02:19:57.300
 And the argument is that C is said to be the correct answer by the key.

02:19:57.300 --> 02:20:02.280
 Reckless damage and destruction, however, is part of penal code chapter 28, and that

02:20:02.280 --> 02:20:05.200
 is not listed in the source material.

02:20:05.200 --> 02:20:10.480
 Say that one more time, I'm sorry.

02:20:10.480 --> 02:20:11.480
 Sure.

02:20:11.480 --> 02:20:12.480
 I'm sorry?

02:20:12.480 --> 02:20:17.160
 You're saying C is not a part of the material?

02:20:17.160 --> 02:20:22.560
 C includes reckless damage and destruction and intoxication, assault.

02:20:22.560 --> 02:20:25.320
 Reckless damage and destruction is chapter 28 of the penal code.

02:20:25.320 --> 02:20:28.280
 It is not included in the source material.

02:20:28.280 --> 02:20:32.680
 But intoxication, assault, is with chapter 49.

02:20:32.680 --> 02:20:34.680
 Okay.

02:20:34.680 --> 02:20:40.280
 I answered intoxication, assault, and criminal mischief, which is B, which that's the same

02:20:40.280 --> 02:20:41.280
 thing.

02:20:41.280 --> 02:20:48.000
 One is in the source material, and one is not.

02:20:48.000 --> 02:20:54.440
 Could we actually see the source material that was referenced, please, for this question?

02:20:54.440 --> 02:20:59.120
 While she's getting that up, can we get the police response?

02:20:59.120 --> 02:21:00.120
 Certainly.

02:21:00.120 --> 02:21:01.120
 Yes, sir.

02:21:01.120 --> 02:21:03.360
 And he is correct.

02:21:03.360 --> 02:21:10.000
 Intoxication, assault, appear in both, or two of the choices, the only two that are

02:21:10.000 --> 02:21:16.160
 arguably correct, and they each contain intoxication, assault, which is out of the source material,

02:21:16.160 --> 02:21:19.760
 and then they contain, one of them contains criminal mischief, and one of them contains

02:21:19.760 --> 02:21:21.760
 reckless damage and destruction.

02:21:21.760 --> 02:21:28.260
 Neither one of those are included in the chapters of the source material.

02:21:28.260 --> 02:21:33.880
 In my response, I said that there is a base of knowledge that's assumed by the test takers.

02:21:33.880 --> 02:21:37.960
 They have to have a minimum of three years to sit for the test.

02:21:37.960 --> 02:21:45.460
 Criminal mischief and reckless damage are offenses that we deal with regularly, and

02:21:45.460 --> 02:21:49.160
 it would be presumed the officers would know the difference in the culpable mental state

02:21:49.160 --> 02:21:52.760
 in those two charges.

02:21:52.760 --> 02:21:58.480
 So in other words, the position is that B and C are both correct?

02:21:58.480 --> 02:22:05.280
 No, my position would be C is the only correct answer.

02:22:05.280 --> 02:22:09.600
 So I'm sorry, I missed something in your enumeration of your position.

02:22:09.600 --> 02:22:11.080
 Could you repeat that for me, please?

02:22:11.080 --> 02:22:13.280
 And I apologize, I missed it.

02:22:13.280 --> 02:22:17.040
 Now, both B and C include intoxication, assault.

02:22:17.040 --> 02:22:18.040
 Yes.

02:22:18.040 --> 02:22:22.720
 The only difference between them is one of them has criminal mischief, and one of them

02:22:22.720 --> 02:22:25.400
 has reckless damage or destruction.

02:22:25.400 --> 02:22:28.960
 Neither one of those components are contained in the source material.

02:22:28.960 --> 02:22:35.160
 However, those are offenses that patrol officers deal with regularly, and should know the difference

02:22:35.160 --> 02:22:38.160
 between them.

02:22:38.160 --> 02:22:47.560
 But here's the conundrum, they're not in the source material.

02:22:47.560 --> 02:22:55.480
 We screwed up on the source material, and meet and confer, as very specifically said,

02:22:55.480 --> 02:22:59.760
 it has to be in the source material.

02:22:59.760 --> 02:23:05.600
 So we can't assume common knowledge.

02:23:05.600 --> 02:23:12.120
 So the question then becomes, what do we do?

02:23:12.120 --> 02:23:27.160
 If none of the answers are correct and in the source material, then what do we do?

02:23:27.160 --> 02:23:33.360
 I'll defer to Stephanie, but I think that may be a situation where you have to throw

02:23:33.360 --> 02:23:42.440
 the question out altogether.

02:23:42.440 --> 02:23:43.440
 It doesn't seem appropriate.

02:23:43.440 --> 02:23:48.840
 I agree with you, Mr. Ramsey, that they should be testing, asking a question on something

02:23:48.840 --> 02:23:50.640
 that's not in the test material.

02:23:50.640 --> 02:23:51.640
 So.

02:23:51.640 --> 02:23:56.000
 Can I say one more thing?

02:23:56.000 --> 02:23:57.000
 Yes.

02:23:57.000 --> 02:24:07.160
 And I guess it's to Latone Barron's argument about the couple woman in the state.

02:24:07.160 --> 02:24:11.720
 I went with criminal mischief, because I do use that one a lot, we rarely use the other

02:24:11.720 --> 02:24:15.800
 one because reckless damage and destruction is negligent.

02:24:15.800 --> 02:24:20.160
 Somebody left their car parked and it rolled into somebody else's car or whatever.

02:24:20.160 --> 02:24:25.280
 The criminal mischief, he knew he was intoxicated and he went and drove anyway, so I don't think

02:24:25.280 --> 02:24:29.340
 that that would qualify as negligent.

02:24:29.340 --> 02:24:36.320
 We don't arrest people on negligent DWI's.

02:24:36.320 --> 02:24:38.040
 I would agree with that, Austin.

02:24:38.040 --> 02:24:50.880
 Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:24:50.880 --> 02:24:51.880
 Okay.

02:24:51.880 --> 02:24:52.880
 John.

02:24:52.880 --> 02:24:53.880
 Yes.

02:24:53.880 --> 02:24:58.320
 It's up to us.

02:24:58.320 --> 02:25:02.260
 My proposal would be to accept BNC.

02:25:02.260 --> 02:25:05.400
 That's where I was headed.

02:25:05.400 --> 02:25:08.400
 So I'll make a motion that we accept BNC.

02:25:08.400 --> 02:25:09.400
 I'll second that.

02:25:09.400 --> 02:25:10.400
 Okay.

02:25:10.400 --> 02:25:13.400
 All in favor say aye.

02:25:13.400 --> 02:25:14.400
 Aye.

02:25:14.400 --> 02:25:28.680
 Okay, Michael, that's another one, just so you know.

02:25:28.680 --> 02:25:33.800
 Next is 97, Derek, you're in.

02:25:33.800 --> 02:25:34.800
 Okay.

02:25:34.800 --> 02:25:37.800
 Can you hear me?

02:25:37.800 --> 02:25:46.240
 Go ahead, Jared.

02:25:46.240 --> 02:25:47.240
 Okay.

02:25:47.240 --> 02:25:48.240
 I was having a hard time hearing you.

02:25:48.240 --> 02:25:49.240
 Okay.

02:25:49.240 --> 02:25:50.240
 Hold on.

02:25:50.240 --> 02:25:51.240
 Okay.

02:25:51.240 --> 02:25:52.240
 Okay.

02:25:52.240 --> 02:26:02.600
 So on this one here, we keep talking about stuff that's not in the source material, enticing

02:26:02.600 --> 02:26:07.240
 a child is not in the source material.

02:26:07.240 --> 02:26:14.200
 Saying that, I'm trying to get into where I was, but in this question, and we deal with

02:26:14.200 --> 02:26:22.800
 this for the big majority of our jobs on a day to day basis is the CCP Chapter 1403.

02:26:22.800 --> 02:26:26.560
 So whenever a peace officer is to make an arrest outside his or her jurisdiction for

02:26:26.560 --> 02:26:32.360
 certain offenses committed in the officer's presence or view, then it asks for which following

02:26:32.360 --> 02:26:35.880
 offenses may peace officers lawfully make a warrantless arrest.

02:26:35.880 --> 02:26:41.080
 That is going to be an on view arrest without a warrant outside of his jurisdiction.

02:26:41.080 --> 02:26:44.920
 So that's going to be outside of Denton, Texas.

02:26:44.920 --> 02:26:48.840
 The first one is enticing a child, which is not part of the source material.

02:26:48.840 --> 02:26:55.800
 It's not a felony, it's a Class B offense under Section 2504, unless the actor intended

02:26:55.800 --> 02:26:58.960
 to commit a felony, which we don't know.

02:26:58.960 --> 02:27:06.740
 D is disorderly conduct, which is going to fall under the Chapter 42.

02:27:06.740 --> 02:27:15.240
 Because under CCP 1403, it's going to mention for a felony, Chapter 42, 49, or a breach

02:27:15.240 --> 02:27:19.840
 of the peace and decent exposure is going to be a breach of the peace.

02:27:19.840 --> 02:27:23.800
 So I believe both of those could fall under that.

02:27:23.800 --> 02:27:30.960
 And the key answer was all of the above D, which I don't believe it is, because enticing

02:27:30.960 --> 02:27:41.400
 a child, again, is not a felony on the face value of that offense.

02:27:41.400 --> 02:27:42.960
 So put yourself in this situation.

02:27:42.960 --> 02:27:51.160
 You're driving down the street and let's just use San Antonio, far from our jurisdiction.

02:27:51.160 --> 02:27:55.080
 It's going to be kind of hard to see an offense enticing a child whenever it really has to

02:27:55.080 --> 02:28:04.840
 do with a custody battle between a parent or a guardian.

02:28:04.840 --> 02:28:08.260
 But you would see disorderly conduct or indecent exposure.

02:28:08.260 --> 02:28:14.780
 Indecent exposure is someone commits an offense that they expose his anus or part of his genitals

02:28:14.780 --> 02:28:20.220
 with an attempt to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of a person and is reckless about whether

02:28:20.220 --> 02:28:23.960
 or not someone else is going to be present and be offended by it.

02:28:23.960 --> 02:28:29.240
 So I don't believe the answer is D. And it could be either B or C.

02:28:29.240 --> 02:28:39.120
 >> Chairman Ramsey, do we want to do the police response before we go to the source material?

02:28:39.120 --> 02:28:46.280
 >> Paul, do you have anything to add to that?

02:28:46.280 --> 02:28:50.720
 >> What did they say, Paul?

02:28:50.720 --> 02:28:51.720
 >> I'm sorry.

02:28:51.720 --> 02:28:52.720
 Did you say Paul?

02:28:52.720 --> 02:28:53.720
 >> Yes, I did.

02:28:53.720 --> 02:28:54.720
 You're one of the appellants.

02:28:54.720 --> 02:28:55.720
 So you get to talk now.

02:28:55.720 --> 02:28:56.720
 >> Hang on one second.

02:28:56.720 --> 02:28:57.720
 You're having a hard time.

02:28:57.720 --> 02:28:58.720
 Can you repeat that?

02:28:58.720 --> 02:28:59.720
 >> You're one of the appellants.

02:28:59.720 --> 02:29:00.720
 Do you have anything to add?

02:29:00.720 --> 02:29:01.720
 >> Yes, sir.

02:29:01.720 --> 02:29:02.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:02.720 --> 02:29:03.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:03.720 --> 02:29:04.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:04.720 --> 02:29:05.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:05.720 --> 02:29:06.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:06.720 --> 02:29:07.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:07.720 --> 02:29:08.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:08.720 --> 02:29:09.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:09.720 --> 02:29:10.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:10.720 --> 02:29:11.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:11.720 --> 02:29:12.720
 My appeal is similar but slightly different.

02:29:12.720 --> 02:29:19.520
 My appeal says that the question is faulty and there's actually no correct answer.

02:29:19.520 --> 02:29:22.040
 It should be eliminated.

02:29:22.040 --> 02:29:30.020
 Based this on the fact that none of this is in the source material, enticing a child as

02:29:30.020 --> 02:29:36.360
 Jared already said is not in the source material, disorderly conduct.

02:29:36.360 --> 02:29:41.840
 My argument on that is yes, it's listed in the CCP, but it is not listed in the source

02:29:41.840 --> 02:29:42.840
 material.

02:29:42.840 --> 02:29:48.760
 If we were going to list every single thing that's listed in the CCP or in any other code

02:29:48.760 --> 02:29:53.120
 that references some other code, you know, including traffic code and everything else

02:29:53.120 --> 02:29:59.640
 that's referenced in all the penal codes and other CCP and other study material, then we'd

02:29:59.640 --> 02:30:04.160
 have hundreds of things that aren't listed in the source material but were able to be

02:30:04.160 --> 02:30:06.880
 tested on.

02:30:06.880 --> 02:30:11.840
 And then C, indecent exposure is not in the source material.

02:30:11.840 --> 02:30:15.680
 It is not listed as a breach of peace because the breaches of peace are listed in Chapter

02:30:15.680 --> 02:30:17.200
 42.

02:30:17.200 --> 02:30:22.960
 And it is also a Class B, not a felony.

02:30:22.960 --> 02:30:24.840
 My argument on enticing a child is the same.

02:30:24.840 --> 02:30:30.160
 It's not a felony unless it's, you know, that was the intent, which we don't have anything

02:30:30.160 --> 02:30:37.520
 to prove that and it's not source material.

02:30:37.520 --> 02:30:42.920
 Okay.

02:30:42.920 --> 02:30:53.000
 I was looking for the felony part of it, and you're saying that's in Chapter 42 and 49,

02:30:53.000 --> 02:30:54.000
 right?

02:30:54.000 --> 02:30:55.000
 49.

02:30:55.000 --> 02:30:57.000
 49 is intoxication assault.

02:30:57.000 --> 02:30:59.080
 Specifically, sales of felony.

02:30:59.080 --> 02:31:00.960
 Yeah, it does say a felony.

02:31:00.960 --> 02:31:04.160
 So you can't arrest on a misdemeanor.

02:31:04.160 --> 02:31:05.160
 Correct.

02:31:05.160 --> 02:31:08.800
 Well, unless it is disorderly conduct.

02:31:08.800 --> 02:31:09.800
 I'm sorry.

02:31:09.800 --> 02:31:10.800
 Say that again.

02:31:10.800 --> 02:31:11.800
 We were both talking.

02:31:11.800 --> 02:31:15.920
 It's listed in Chapter 42, which is what the CCP says, but my argument with the answer

02:31:15.920 --> 02:31:22.600
 being disorderly conduct as B is disorderly conduct in and of itself is not listed in

02:31:22.600 --> 02:31:23.600
 the source material.

02:31:23.600 --> 02:31:27.960
 It is only referenced in CCP 1403.

02:31:27.960 --> 02:31:31.640
 And if we're going to reference everything and include it in the source material, that's

02:31:31.640 --> 02:31:37.280
 going to be hundreds of codes, including all the traffic offenses.

02:31:37.280 --> 02:31:38.600
 Okay.

02:31:38.600 --> 02:31:40.920
 Thank you.

02:31:40.920 --> 02:31:41.920
 Thank you.

02:31:41.920 --> 02:31:42.920
 Lieutenant Behrens.

02:31:42.920 --> 02:31:43.920
 Yes, sir.

02:31:43.920 --> 02:31:44.920
 Yes, sir.

02:31:44.920 --> 02:31:54.000
 The question is not about what section or enticing a child disorderly conduct or indecent

02:31:54.000 --> 02:31:55.000
 closure on.

02:31:55.000 --> 02:31:59.640
 The question is specifically about when can a peace officer outside his jurisdiction make

02:31:59.640 --> 02:32:01.240
 an arrest?

02:32:01.240 --> 02:32:06.880
 And I believe that one of the appellants mentioned that C, B and C are both correct because they

02:32:06.880 --> 02:32:09.680
 are both breaches of the peace.

02:32:09.680 --> 02:32:15.660
 A is also correct because there is a felony level enticing a child.

02:32:15.660 --> 02:32:20.240
 So all of the above is the correct answer.

02:32:20.240 --> 02:32:25.480
 I think Officer Weatherford mentioned breach of the peace, something not being listed as

02:32:25.480 --> 02:32:26.480
 a breach of the peace.

02:32:26.480 --> 02:32:28.600
 There are no statutes.

02:32:28.600 --> 02:32:33.680
 There are no offenses that are specifically listed as a breach of the peace.

02:32:33.680 --> 02:32:38.360
 The breach of the peace comes in from case law.

02:32:38.360 --> 02:32:44.400
 So D, all of the above is the correct answer.

02:32:44.400 --> 02:32:54.640
 John, questions?

02:32:54.640 --> 02:32:56.160
 I was just trying to go down.

02:32:56.160 --> 02:32:58.480
 If you could scroll down, please.

02:32:58.480 --> 02:33:19.560
 Thank you.

02:33:19.560 --> 02:33:26.720
 The Lieutenant Barron's mentioned that there's no, that indecent exposure is a breach of

02:33:26.720 --> 02:33:27.720
 the peace.

02:33:27.720 --> 02:33:34.080
 However, if you look at Chapter 42, it mentions that these are breaches of peace in the first

02:33:34.080 --> 02:33:41.480
 couple of sentences and indecent exposure is not included in Chapter 42.

02:33:41.480 --> 02:33:44.320
 Just to clarify, enticing a child has a felony level.

02:33:44.320 --> 02:33:49.440
 I didn't say it was a breach of the peace.

02:33:49.440 --> 02:33:53.440
 I was talking about indecent exposure.

02:33:53.440 --> 02:33:59.900
 Alright, John, questions?

02:33:59.900 --> 02:34:09.040
 I'm still on delay right now, just a second, please.

02:34:09.040 --> 02:34:18.040
 Let me ask the audience, is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the offense,

02:34:18.040 --> 02:34:19.040
 to the appeal?

02:34:19.040 --> 02:34:23.520
 It's been a long afternoon.

02:34:23.520 --> 02:34:25.840
 Is this a felony or a misdemeanor?

02:34:25.840 --> 02:34:30.560
 Crystal, I can't see everybody, but I assume you can if you can.

02:34:30.560 --> 02:34:33.400
 No, you can't because you're sharing their screen.

02:34:33.400 --> 02:34:38.520
 Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition, speak up?

02:34:38.520 --> 02:34:44.000
 Sarah, you just came up on the screen.

02:34:44.000 --> 02:34:51.840
 Do you want to speak?

02:34:51.840 --> 02:34:54.120
 Has there been a motion for what question?

02:34:54.120 --> 02:35:07.960
 I'm just asking if you'd like to speak in opposition to the appeal.

02:35:07.960 --> 02:35:10.720
 I do have a question, Chairman.

02:35:10.720 --> 02:35:12.420
 Yes, sir.

02:35:12.420 --> 02:35:17.360
 It's a question of the department.

02:35:17.360 --> 02:35:33.840
 So there's this question that has been enumerated and it says we're referencing Article 14.03,

02:35:33.840 --> 02:35:39.920
 authorizing a peace officer to make an arrest outside of his or her jurisdiction for certain

02:35:39.920 --> 02:35:44.760
 offenses committed in the officer's presence or view.

02:35:44.760 --> 02:35:51.760
 For which of the following offenses may peace officers lawfully make a warrantless arrest

02:35:51.760 --> 02:35:55.040
 when outside their jurisdiction?

02:35:55.040 --> 02:36:02.800
 So how many of these are listed in 14.03, Lieutenant Barons?

02:36:02.800 --> 02:36:10.760
 There's no specific, I'd have to look it up, but I don't think there's a specific offense

02:36:10.760 --> 02:36:18.960
 that are listed in 14.03 that says you may arrest for this specific offense.

02:36:18.960 --> 02:36:19.960
 So help me here.

02:36:19.960 --> 02:36:30.680
 So how would an officer or a test taker know that these three items would all constitute

02:36:30.680 --> 02:36:33.520
 a justification for an arrest?

02:36:33.520 --> 02:36:36.300
 How do you get there?

02:36:36.300 --> 02:36:41.160
 They have to know what the level of offenses are and what constitutes a breach of the peace.

02:36:41.160 --> 02:36:45.800
 But that wasn't part of the source material, though?

02:36:45.800 --> 02:36:48.960
 The 14.03 is in the source material, yes.

02:36:48.960 --> 02:36:52.360
 Right, but these items weren't listed there in the source material.

02:36:52.360 --> 02:36:58.920
 No, but what it does say is that for a felony, a violation of Chapter 42 or 49, or a breach

02:36:58.920 --> 02:37:05.480
 of the peace, it presumes that you have some knowledge of the penal code.

02:37:05.480 --> 02:37:09.160
 So was 42 and 49 a part of the source material?

02:37:09.160 --> 02:37:11.200
 49 is, yes.

02:37:11.200 --> 02:37:15.000
 42, I don't think it is.

02:37:15.000 --> 02:37:19.000
 And in 49, which of those three items are listed there, please?

02:37:19.000 --> 02:37:20.960
 None of those are in 49.

02:37:20.960 --> 02:37:27.400
 49 is intoxication, grabbing intoxication assault, and DWI offensives.

02:37:27.400 --> 02:37:39.160
 Thank you, thank you, Officer Barron, Lieutenant Barron.

02:37:39.160 --> 02:37:48.040
 John, what are you thinking?

02:37:48.040 --> 02:37:53.920
 Oh, there's a disconnect here.

02:37:53.920 --> 02:38:03.800
 And so I'm trying to -- how do we rectify this situation, or is it rectifiable?

02:38:03.800 --> 02:38:10.100
 Stephanie and Michael, I'm going to come back to you.

02:38:10.100 --> 02:38:17.760
 I think in this particular case, it requires -- the question itself requires information

02:38:17.760 --> 02:38:27.800
 that while it should be known, should be, we can't assume that it is, and the material

02:38:27.800 --> 02:38:33.560
 that was listed in the source material does not give us an opportunity to answer this

02:38:33.560 --> 02:38:34.560
 question.

02:38:34.560 --> 02:38:43.440
 Therefore, as much as I hate to do it, I think we need to throw this question out.

02:38:43.440 --> 02:38:47.880
 We have that option, Commissioner.

02:38:47.880 --> 02:38:51.760
 Michael, do you have any input?

02:38:51.760 --> 02:38:59.360
 Yeah, I'd also just caution you that if we talk about source material a lot, that something's

02:38:59.360 --> 02:39:06.080
 not in the source material, but you shouldn't be giving credit to an answer if it's not

02:39:06.080 --> 02:39:07.640
 in the source material either.

02:39:07.640 --> 02:39:13.480
 I mean, you may -- you can't kind of have it both ways.

02:39:13.480 --> 02:39:16.000
 I was just a little concerned on the last question.

02:39:16.000 --> 02:39:20.480
 I may have misunderstood it, the one about intoxication, where I think you gave credit

02:39:20.480 --> 02:39:28.200
 to B and C because intoxication assault was one of the parts, but then there was another

02:39:28.200 --> 02:39:31.360
 part that was criminal mischief and reckless.

02:39:31.360 --> 02:39:37.800
 And I thought I heard you say those weren't in the source materials, but you were giving

02:39:37.800 --> 02:39:44.480
 credit if you picked either one of those, which seemed a little contradictory when you

02:39:44.480 --> 02:39:45.960
 talk about the source material.

02:39:45.960 --> 02:39:51.720
 Maybe I misunderstood it, but I --

02:39:51.720 --> 02:39:59.000
 I think my problem with this question as opposed to the one you're referencing -- Sarah, I

02:39:59.000 --> 02:40:09.080
 see your hand, I'll get to you -- is the fact that none of the answers that are listed on

02:40:09.080 --> 02:40:16.000
 the test are listed in the source material, none of them, and the other one, at least

02:40:16.000 --> 02:40:20.520
 some of them were, so we could accept the ones that were and the ones that weren't.

02:40:20.520 --> 02:40:33.680
 But in this particular case, Texas Code 1403 doesn't list any of the answers that are on

02:40:33.680 --> 02:40:34.680
 the test.

02:40:34.680 --> 02:40:50.720
 They're all in 42 and 49, or 42 and -- 49, there's none in 42, none in 42, 42 wasn't

02:40:50.720 --> 02:40:51.720
 given as source material.

02:40:51.720 --> 02:40:57.880
 So the material wasn't presented, and the other one that was presented, some of the

02:40:57.880 --> 02:40:58.880
 answers weren't presented.

02:40:58.880 --> 02:41:00.880
 I don't know what we do with this question.

02:41:00.880 --> 02:41:06.160
 I mean, I could understand -- None of the answers were mentioned in the

02:41:06.160 --> 02:41:07.160
 source material.

02:41:07.160 --> 02:41:10.320
 That was a distinction I saw, too, Michael.

02:41:10.320 --> 02:41:16.080
 And I understand the lieutenant's argument that 1403, I think it just cites that, so

02:41:16.080 --> 02:41:19.640
 I don't know that then that means that the source material has to include things that

02:41:19.640 --> 02:41:22.540
 are cited in something else.

02:41:22.540 --> 02:41:27.000
 But ultimately, it's for the commission to decide what you think is the fair and just

02:41:27.000 --> 02:41:28.360
 decision.

02:41:28.360 --> 02:41:35.920
 So I support whatever you ultimately decide to do, I support that.

02:41:35.920 --> 02:41:36.920
 Okay.

02:41:36.920 --> 02:41:37.920
 Thank you.

02:41:37.920 --> 02:41:41.320
 Sarah, go ahead.

02:41:41.320 --> 02:41:47.400
 I would just oppose throwing the question out, because if the answer was chosen factually

02:41:47.400 --> 02:41:58.240
 correct, then you're penalizing somebody who answered the question factually by throwing

02:41:58.240 --> 02:42:06.400
 the question out, instead of accepting all of the answers.

02:42:06.400 --> 02:42:11.880
 Okay, thank you.

02:42:11.880 --> 02:42:17.760
 Can I add something?

02:42:17.760 --> 02:42:18.760
 Sure.

02:42:18.760 --> 02:42:19.760
 So this is Jared Wray.

02:42:19.760 --> 02:42:23.720
 As far as enticing a child, it's not part of that literature, where, again, disorderly

02:42:23.720 --> 02:42:30.320
 conduct is, because it is listed under 1403, under Chapter 42.

02:42:30.320 --> 02:42:39.680
 Which is, in essence, a secondary source, because in 14 you've got to go to 42, but

02:42:39.680 --> 02:42:42.960
 you also can go to 49.

02:42:42.960 --> 02:42:50.920
 You're going to get yourself in a real basket of hurt if we start saying all of the references

02:42:50.920 --> 02:42:58.960
 to all of the other sections in a particular section are valid source material.

02:42:58.960 --> 02:43:08.840
 We're looking at that whole big thick Texas code, and while you probably should know it,

02:43:08.840 --> 02:43:16.280
 if they want to test you on it, then they've got to bring the whole thing to the commission

02:43:16.280 --> 02:43:18.120
 for approval under source material.

02:43:18.120 --> 02:43:19.120
 I agree.

02:43:19.120 --> 02:43:22.120
 I know where you're coming from.

02:43:22.120 --> 02:43:29.200
 And Sarah, you know, you haven't been here for 15 years, whatever, years.

02:43:29.200 --> 02:43:37.440
 I hate, I mean, it hurts to even have to suggest throwing a question out, because that hurts

02:43:37.440 --> 02:43:39.120
 everybody.

02:43:39.120 --> 02:43:43.440
 Those who got it right and those who got it wrong, because everything, everything means

02:43:43.440 --> 02:43:44.440
 counseling.

02:43:44.440 --> 02:43:45.440
 So I'm with you.

02:43:45.440 --> 02:43:46.440
 I understand where you're coming from.

02:43:46.440 --> 02:43:47.440
 Chairman Ramsey.

02:43:47.440 --> 02:43:48.440
 Chairman Ramsey.

02:43:48.440 --> 02:44:05.180
 May I make a motion that we accept all the answers, please?

02:44:05.180 --> 02:44:10.720
 The question specifically says for which of the following offenses may peace officers

02:44:10.720 --> 02:44:17.120
 lawfully make a warrantless arrest when outside of their jurisdiction?

02:44:17.120 --> 02:44:24.520
 The preferred answer would be all of the above, but here would be my question with that, John.

02:44:24.520 --> 02:44:28.240
 I think that that certainly is a is an alternative.

02:44:28.240 --> 02:44:36.720
 I'll ask this question to the lieutenant if it is indeed all of these are A, B, and C

02:44:36.720 --> 02:44:38.840
 all felonies?

02:44:38.840 --> 02:44:40.760
 No.

02:44:40.760 --> 02:44:48.160
 That was not the answer I was hoping for.

02:44:48.160 --> 02:44:49.720
 It's true.

02:44:49.720 --> 02:44:51.360
 I understand.

02:44:51.360 --> 02:44:53.360
 I'm with you.

02:44:53.360 --> 02:44:57.800
 But wasn't the answer I was hoping you were going to give me.

02:44:57.800 --> 02:45:00.920
 They are all either felonies or breaches of the peace?

02:45:00.920 --> 02:45:01.920
 Does that help?

02:45:01.920 --> 02:45:08.400
 Well, doesn't 1403 specifically say felonies?

02:45:08.400 --> 02:45:09.400
 Or a breach of the peace?

02:45:09.400 --> 02:45:11.960
 Where does it say breach of the peace?

02:45:11.960 --> 02:45:15.560
 The last line.

02:45:15.560 --> 02:45:16.560
 Last line where?

02:45:16.560 --> 02:45:19.720
 On the department note there.

02:45:19.720 --> 02:45:20.720
 Yeah.

02:45:20.720 --> 02:45:31.480
 Yeah, but I need to see it in 14 because that's the source material.

02:45:31.480 --> 02:45:32.480
 Yes, sir.

02:45:32.480 --> 02:45:36.640
 I mean, I didn't read the whole thing.

02:45:36.640 --> 02:45:37.640
 I'll be honest.

02:45:37.640 --> 02:45:40.360
 Bearing my soul in front of everybody.

02:45:40.360 --> 02:45:42.280
 I didn't read the whole thing.

02:45:42.280 --> 02:45:50.400
 1403A, number one, again, persons found in suspicious places and under

02:45:50.400 --> 02:45:56.120
 circumstances showed that such persons have been guilty of some felonies.

02:45:56.120 --> 02:45:59.680
 Travis, where are you again?

02:45:59.680 --> 02:46:02.200
 Give me an explanation.

02:46:02.200 --> 02:46:04.560
 1403A, number one.

02:46:04.560 --> 02:46:07.440
 It's actually 1403D.

02:46:07.440 --> 02:46:08.440
 D?

02:46:08.440 --> 02:46:13.040
 D is in David.

02:46:13.040 --> 02:46:17.960
 Well, D is in David.

02:46:17.960 --> 02:46:22.080
 No, it's A as an atom.

02:46:22.080 --> 02:46:28.280
 It's listed under there that number one, it's in the last sentence.

02:46:28.280 --> 02:46:34.200
 Violation of Title IX, Chapter 42, penal code, breach of the peace, options under section

02:46:34.200 --> 02:46:40.120
 49.02, penal code, so on and so forth.

02:46:40.120 --> 02:46:42.240
 A1?

02:46:42.240 --> 02:46:44.240
 Yeah.

02:46:44.240 --> 02:46:46.280
 I don't see that, breach of the peace.

02:46:46.280 --> 02:46:49.480
 It's in the next last line of A1, John.

02:46:49.480 --> 02:46:50.480
 I see it.

02:46:50.480 --> 02:46:51.480
 I see it.

02:46:51.480 --> 02:46:52.480
 I see it.

02:46:52.480 --> 02:46:53.480
 I see it now.

02:46:53.480 --> 02:46:54.480
 All right.

02:46:54.480 --> 02:46:58.160
 I'll second your motion to accept all the answers.

02:46:58.160 --> 02:47:00.840
 All right.

02:47:00.840 --> 02:47:05.200
 So all in favor, say aye.

02:47:05.200 --> 02:47:06.200
 Aye.

02:47:06.200 --> 02:47:07.200
 Okay.

02:47:07.200 --> 02:47:12.960
 I like that better than throwing the question out.

02:47:12.960 --> 02:47:16.600
 I don't like it, but I like it better than throwing the question out.

02:47:16.600 --> 02:47:17.600
 Oh, excuse me.

02:47:17.600 --> 02:47:19.240
 That was an editorial comment.

02:47:19.240 --> 02:47:20.240
 Please take that.

02:47:20.240 --> 02:47:22.240
 You didn't hear me say that, folks.

02:47:22.240 --> 02:47:23.240
 All right.

02:47:23.240 --> 02:47:29.520
 Sarah, you get the last word here on number 100.

02:47:29.520 --> 02:47:34.800
 Okay.

02:47:34.800 --> 02:47:48.920
 For everybody's reference, question 100 stated, Denton PD General Orders Chapter 3, the location,

02:47:48.920 --> 02:47:53.720
 direction of travel, and estimated speed of the suspect's vehicle, the description of

02:47:53.720 --> 02:47:58.920
 the suspect's vehicle, including the license plate number, if known, the number of occupants

02:47:58.920 --> 02:48:04.640
 and identity or description, the weather, road, and traffic conditions.

02:48:04.640 --> 02:48:15.000
 The question asked, these are examples of option A was the suspect, or these are examples

02:48:15.000 --> 02:48:24.760
 of A, the suspect, B, primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities, C, secondary pursuit vehicle

02:48:24.760 --> 02:48:28.960
 responsibilities, and D, all of the above.

02:48:28.960 --> 02:48:36.000
 The answer key said that B, primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities was the correct answer.

02:48:36.000 --> 02:48:42.760
 My argument was that C, these are examples of secondary pursuit vehicle responsibilities.

02:48:42.760 --> 02:48:47.360
 The reason for that being was the question itself did not state how many vehicles were

02:48:47.360 --> 02:48:54.400
 involved in the pursuit or at what point in the pursuit the question was being asked.

02:48:54.400 --> 02:49:01.840
 Based on the available answer options, primary pursuit and secondary pursuit vehicle, you

02:49:01.840 --> 02:49:07.240
 have to assume that there is a primary vehicle, primary pursuit vehicle, and a secondary pursuit

02:49:07.240 --> 02:49:11.360
 vehicle involved in the pursuit.

02:49:11.360 --> 02:49:19.480
 The general order that was in the source material that is my reference states, the primary pursuing

02:49:19.480 --> 02:49:28.760
 officer should as soon as practicable, sorry, relinquish the responsibility of broadcasting

02:49:28.760 --> 02:49:37.080
 the progress of the pursuit to an officer in a secondary pursuit vehicle.

02:49:37.080 --> 02:49:46.320
 It also states, included in that is that they should, and when you have a general order,

02:49:46.320 --> 02:49:51.400
 it's important to note that there's a difference between can or should.

02:49:51.400 --> 02:49:55.220
 And if it says should, then that is what is best practice.

02:49:55.220 --> 02:49:59.360
 And if it's best practice, then that's the best answer for the secondary pursuit vehicle

02:49:59.360 --> 02:50:02.280
 to take over those responsibilities.

02:50:02.280 --> 02:50:07.120
 If there was only one, if there was only a primary pursuing vehicle, then obviously it

02:50:07.120 --> 02:50:08.840
 would be their responsibility.

02:50:08.840 --> 02:50:14.680
 But when you give an answer option of a secondary pursuit vehicle, then that would be the best

02:50:14.680 --> 02:50:20.360
 option, that would be the best answer because it's the safest answer.

02:50:20.360 --> 02:50:31.180
 John, do you have questions?

02:50:31.180 --> 02:50:32.180
 Let's see.

02:50:32.180 --> 02:50:35.820
 Let's go to the actual general orders, chapter three.

02:50:35.820 --> 02:50:46.240
 Let's take a look at it, please.

02:50:46.240 --> 02:50:52.640
 So let's find these four bullet points, okay, or excuse me, not the bullet points, but let's

02:50:52.640 --> 02:50:57.520
 find A, B, E, and F. Let's find those.

02:50:57.520 --> 02:51:05.440
 So the location, direction is A. B, the description of the suspect's vehicle, including license

02:51:05.440 --> 02:51:16.720
 plate number, if known, E, the number of occupants, and identify, excuse me, an identity or description,

02:51:16.720 --> 02:51:23.920
 and lastly, F, and these are all under the primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities.

02:51:23.920 --> 02:51:36.760
 So it's clearly listed there under 307.4.3.

02:51:36.760 --> 02:51:44.320
 So Officer Keith, why would you think that it would be secondary pursuit vehicle responsibilities?

02:51:44.320 --> 02:51:46.080
 Is that listed there as well?

02:51:46.080 --> 02:51:50.680
 Yeah, if you can look up to 300.7.4.3.

02:51:50.680 --> 02:52:00.380
 Let's go there, please.

02:52:00.380 --> 02:52:07.440
 And you can see where it says the primary pursuing officer should, as soon as practicable,

02:52:07.440 --> 02:52:12.760
 relinquish the responsibility of broadcasting the progress of the pursuit to an officer

02:52:12.760 --> 02:52:15.440
 in a secondary pursuit vehicle.

02:52:15.440 --> 02:52:16.440
 What was the reference again?

02:52:16.440 --> 02:52:21.160
 I don't think we're on your reference because we're still on the primary pursuit here on

02:52:21.160 --> 02:52:22.160
 the screen.

02:52:22.160 --> 02:52:23.160
 Right.

02:52:23.160 --> 02:52:24.160
 That's in there, right?

02:52:24.160 --> 02:52:25.160
 We're gonna scroll down.

02:52:25.160 --> 02:52:26.160
 Right?

02:52:26.160 --> 02:52:27.160
 Sarah?

02:52:27.160 --> 02:52:28.160
 What?

02:52:28.160 --> 02:52:29.160
 307.4.3, correct?

02:52:29.160 --> 02:52:30.160
 Right.

02:52:30.160 --> 02:52:31.160
 Okay.

02:52:31.160 --> 02:52:34.160
 John, it's right there.

02:52:34.160 --> 02:52:37.800
 It's at the very top.

02:52:37.800 --> 02:52:38.800
 Okay.

02:52:38.800 --> 02:52:44.680
 The initial pursuing officer will be designated as the primary pursuit vehicle and will be

02:52:44.680 --> 02:52:50.960
 responsible for the conduct of the pursuit unless they are unable to remain reasonably

02:52:50.960 --> 02:52:53.680
 close to the suspect's vehicle.

02:52:53.680 --> 02:52:59.340
 The primary responsibility of the officer initiating the pursuit is the apprehension

02:52:59.340 --> 02:53:04.640
 of the suspect without unreasonable danger to themselves or others.

02:53:04.640 --> 02:53:10.520
 The primary pursuing officer should notify the communications dispatcher commencing with

02:53:10.520 --> 02:53:17.880
 a request for priority radio traffic that a vehicle pursuit has been initiated and as

02:53:17.880 --> 02:53:28.080
 soon as practicable, provide information including but not limited to and then, let's see here.

02:53:28.080 --> 02:53:34.160
 This is the part down here under H, the third line where it says the primary pursuing officer

02:53:34.160 --> 02:53:44.560
 should.

02:53:44.560 --> 02:53:45.560
 I'm sorry.

02:53:45.560 --> 02:53:46.560
 I'm not--

02:53:46.560 --> 02:53:47.560
 Right after--

02:53:47.560 --> 02:53:48.560
 Okay.

02:53:48.560 --> 02:53:49.560
 I see it.

02:53:49.560 --> 02:53:50.560
 Okay.

02:53:50.560 --> 02:53:56.600
 It says the primary pursuing officer should, as soon as practicable, relinquish the responsibility

02:53:56.600 --> 02:54:03.600
 of broadcasting the progress of the pursuit to an officer in a secondary pursuit vehicle

02:54:03.600 --> 02:54:11.280
 or to air support joining the pursuit to minimize distractions and allow the primary pursuing

02:54:11.280 --> 02:54:17.540
 officer to concentrate foremost on safe pursuit tactics.

02:54:17.540 --> 02:54:23.120
 So why do you say this relates to secondary pursuit responsibilities?

02:54:23.120 --> 02:54:28.000
 Because it's saying right there that it's the responsibility of the primary pursuit

02:54:28.000 --> 02:54:34.960
 vehicle to relinquish those responsibilities to the secondary pursuit vehicle.

02:54:34.960 --> 02:54:39.680
 The primary pursuit vehicle is supposed to concentrate solely on driving so that they're

02:54:39.680 --> 02:54:44.360
 not having to drive a car and talk on the radio at the same time to air all of this

02:54:44.360 --> 02:54:46.280
 updated information.

02:54:46.280 --> 02:54:51.800
 That's the way the policy is written and that's the way we practice it is that once your secondary

02:54:51.800 --> 02:54:57.720
 pursuit vehicle arrives, you are not talking on the radio whatsoever, you focus on driving.

02:54:57.720 --> 02:55:03.880
 The secondary pursuit vehicle can back off a little bit and they can be looking around

02:55:03.880 --> 02:55:10.520
 for the traffic conditions and things like that that may be hazardous to the pursuit

02:55:10.520 --> 02:55:16.440
 and they can be talking on the radio to advise dispatch of all of that.

02:55:16.440 --> 02:55:29.480
 And even further, if you look down into in that same primary pursuit vehicle 307.4.3

02:55:29.480 --> 02:55:36.120
 until relieved by a secondary pursuing officer, that means that a secondary pursuit vehicle

02:55:36.120 --> 02:55:41.360
 is assumed to be dispatched or already on scene for any pursuit and that is our common

02:55:41.360 --> 02:55:46.280
 practice is that anytime a pursuit is initiated, there will be a secondary pursuit vehicle

02:55:46.280 --> 02:55:50.840
 involved at some point, unless it's terminated before they arrive.

02:55:50.840 --> 02:55:59.840
 And even further, in the secondary pursuit vehicle responsibilities 307.4.4, it states

02:55:59.840 --> 02:56:04.640
 that they are responsible for broadcasting the progress of the pursuit, updating non or

02:56:04.640 --> 02:56:11.400
 critical information and providing changes in the pursuit.

02:56:11.400 --> 02:56:18.440
 The best answer is that a secondary pursuit vehicle will be involved.

02:56:18.440 --> 02:56:23.480
 That is one of the options that the test gives and if that is an option, then that is the

02:56:23.480 --> 02:56:25.800
 best option.

02:56:25.800 --> 02:56:32.600
 Could you scroll up just a little bit Stephanie, I want to go back up to the preface of those

02:56:32.600 --> 02:56:33.600
 enumerations.

02:56:33.600 --> 02:56:42.840
 So here we are here, it says primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities, and then A through

02:56:42.840 --> 02:56:49.960
 H all relate to the responsibilities of the primary vehicle.

02:56:49.960 --> 02:56:58.880
 And then once they're relieved, then they become the responsibility of the secondary.

02:56:58.880 --> 02:57:05.960
 But in looking at this description, this is the primary pursuit vehicles responsibilities.

02:57:05.960 --> 02:57:15.480
 You go back to the question and it says, these are examples of, and to me it looks like it's

02:57:15.480 --> 02:57:22.640
 the primary pursuit vehicle responsibilities.

02:57:22.640 --> 02:57:34.360
 They become the secondary vehicles responsibility once that secondary vehicle comes on the scene,

02:57:34.360 --> 02:57:36.840
 but initially it's the responsibility of the primary.

02:57:36.840 --> 02:57:38.480
 Go ahead, Sarah.

02:57:38.480 --> 02:57:43.880
 But you can frequently have two officers arrive on scene and there is automatically a primary

02:57:43.880 --> 02:57:48.640
 and a secondary, and you may have a vehicle stop where the vehicle stops and then decides

02:57:48.640 --> 02:57:53.680
 to take off and your backup's already there, two vehicles automatically in the pursuit.

02:57:53.680 --> 02:57:58.240
 It's not always a single vehicle involved in a pursuit until the secondary gets there.

02:57:58.240 --> 02:58:04.080
 The question doesn't say in a vehicle pursuit where only the primary vehicle is involved.

02:58:04.080 --> 02:58:08.040
 Okay, it does not say that.

02:58:08.040 --> 02:58:09.320
 It does not say that.

02:58:09.320 --> 02:58:20.120
 What I'm reading though is that if those are the primaries and then once a secondary comes

02:58:20.120 --> 02:58:26.600
 in, those responsibilities transfer to the second, but preliminarily they become the

02:58:26.600 --> 02:58:29.400
 responsibility of the primary.

02:58:29.400 --> 02:58:35.640
 But it would be wrong to say if the secondary vehicle is an option, it would be wrong to

02:58:35.640 --> 02:58:40.920
 say that it's not their responsibility because it is.

02:58:40.920 --> 02:58:44.240
 I wouldn't disagree with that.

02:58:44.240 --> 02:58:45.680
 I wouldn't disagree with that.

02:58:45.680 --> 02:58:52.400
 But if you look at the question, it's specifically saying these are the responsibilities of the

02:58:52.400 --> 02:58:58.520
 primary and then once the secondary comes, they become the responsibility of the secondary.

02:58:58.520 --> 02:59:03.640
 So it depends on at what point of the pursuit that that question is being asked.

02:59:03.640 --> 02:59:05.360
 That's correct.

02:59:05.360 --> 02:59:11.760
 But primarily though, their responsibility of the primary.

02:59:11.760 --> 02:59:12.760
 That's how I'm reading it.

02:59:12.760 --> 02:59:15.480
 I don't want to argue with you.

02:59:15.480 --> 02:59:21.420
 I'm just enumerating what I see as my position.

02:59:21.420 --> 02:59:22.420
 Police response.

02:59:22.420 --> 02:59:23.420
 Yes, sir.

02:59:23.420 --> 02:59:30.680
 They just described very eloquently the primary responsibilities are listed, specifically

02:59:30.680 --> 02:59:35.720
 those for A, B, E, and F are in there.

02:59:35.720 --> 02:59:41.480
 If you look at the secondary unit responsibilities, none of those are in there.

02:59:41.480 --> 02:59:48.520
 The closest you could get is that the secondary unit is once they come into play, they're

02:59:48.520 --> 02:59:55.720
 responsible for updating the progress of the pursuit and that's the only part that you

02:59:55.720 --> 03:00:03.920
 could even remotely say is similar to A, B, E, and F are nowhere in the secondary unit

03:00:03.920 --> 03:00:10.960
 responsibilities.

03:00:10.960 --> 03:00:13.000
 Question of police, John.

03:00:13.000 --> 03:00:14.720
 I have no more questions.

03:00:14.720 --> 03:00:15.720
 Okay.

03:00:15.720 --> 03:00:19.200
 Thank you, Officer Keith, for the dialogue.

03:00:19.200 --> 03:00:28.260
 Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

03:00:28.260 --> 03:00:34.160
 Seeing none, John, it's up to us.

03:00:34.160 --> 03:00:37.360
 I'm going to sustain the key, Mr. Chair.

03:00:37.360 --> 03:00:38.360
 Second.

03:00:38.360 --> 03:00:41.760
 All in favor, say aye.

03:00:41.760 --> 03:00:42.760
 Aye.

03:00:42.760 --> 03:00:43.760
 Okay.

03:00:43.760 --> 03:00:58.560
 Now, we'll go back over those, just the answers for bookkeeping purposes, but ladies and gentlemen,

03:00:58.560 --> 03:01:04.880
 I said this to you earlier, I'll say it again, I'll say it every time.

03:01:04.880 --> 03:01:15.760
 Every time we do this, I say it, I'm sorry if you've heard it before, I apologize, but

03:01:15.760 --> 03:01:22.000
 I appreciate and I think all of us as citizens of Denton appreciate the fact that you took

03:01:22.000 --> 03:01:30.720
 time out of your schedules, time out of doing fun things when you're not working in order

03:01:30.720 --> 03:01:38.080
 to study this material and try to better yourself, and most of all, that means trying to better

03:01:38.080 --> 03:01:40.600
 us as a community.

03:01:40.600 --> 03:01:46.640
 You've taken it on the chin a lot in the last nine months to a year, and I think you've

03:01:46.640 --> 03:01:53.120
 done an admirable job in what you do for us as a community.

03:01:53.120 --> 03:02:02.040
 I certainly wouldn't want to do what you do because when I want to run the other way,

03:02:02.040 --> 03:02:06.560
 your job is to run to it, and that says a lot.

03:02:06.560 --> 03:02:14.320
 It says a lot about you, and for that, I am, and I think I speak for many of the citizens,

03:02:14.320 --> 03:02:20.280
 hopefully all of the citizens of Denton, to say we appreciate and we thank you for your

03:02:20.280 --> 03:02:28.120
 willingness to do that for us so that we don't have to do it, and for you trying to make

03:02:28.120 --> 03:02:31.720
 yourself better and make us a better community.

03:02:31.720 --> 03:02:39.880
 So I know you're probably all walking away going, "Well, I didn't get my appeal approved,"

03:02:39.880 --> 03:02:48.120
 but nevertheless, know that there is a heartfelt thank you for all that you do, both in your

03:02:48.120 --> 03:02:57.560
 daily work and in taking the time to study this material and become a better officer

03:02:57.560 --> 03:03:04.400
 and do a better job for all of us, so thank you from the bottom of my heart.

03:03:04.400 --> 03:03:12.000
 Thank you for all you do every day and above and beyond what you normally do, so thank

03:03:12.000 --> 03:03:16.200
 you very much for that.

03:03:16.200 --> 03:03:23.320
 That being said, can we go back over the crystal, I don't know if you've been keeping them or

03:03:23.320 --> 03:03:28.360
 Stephanie's been keeping them, and just quickly run down the results?

03:03:28.360 --> 03:03:29.960
 Absolutely.

03:03:29.960 --> 03:03:33.400
 So question eight, we're sustaining the key.

03:03:33.400 --> 03:03:35.280
 Question 18 was withdrawn.

03:03:35.280 --> 03:03:37.640
 Question 39 was withdrawn.

03:03:37.640 --> 03:03:44.360
 Question 53, accept A, B, and C. Question 57, sustain the key.

03:03:44.360 --> 03:03:52.840
 Question 58, accept A and C. Question 59, sustain the key.

03:03:52.840 --> 03:03:55.720
 Question 75 was withdrawn.

03:03:55.720 --> 03:04:02.440
 Question 85, accept B as in boy and C. Question 88, sustain the key.

03:04:02.440 --> 03:04:09.400
 Question 92, accept B as in boy and C. Question 97, accept all answers.

03:04:09.400 --> 03:04:11.840
 And question 100, sustain the key.

03:04:11.840 --> 03:04:17.600
 Okay, thank you, I think our notes are the same.

03:04:17.600 --> 03:04:28.120
 So next item of business on the agenda is to, where is it, on the other page, talk about

03:04:28.120 --> 03:04:31.920
 the meeting schedule, where we go from here.

03:04:31.920 --> 03:04:38.480
 Yes, the city secretary's office has requested that we approve our meeting schedule for the

03:04:38.480 --> 03:04:47.280
 year of 2021, prior to COVID, we were meeting the fourth Wednesday of the month.

03:04:47.280 --> 03:04:51.440
 Most of the time, because we also have to check the availability of the room, even though

03:04:51.440 --> 03:04:54.680
 we're not meeting in person, they do still have to set up and they need that room to

03:04:54.680 --> 03:04:57.520
 set up to broadcast this.

03:04:57.520 --> 03:05:02.880
 So most of the time, we could still meet that fourth Wednesday of the month.

03:05:02.880 --> 03:05:08.500
 There are a couple of times that we would need to move to either Thursday or Friday.

03:05:08.500 --> 03:05:13.080
 But if you would like, we could go ahead and move forward with setting our schedule as

03:05:13.080 --> 03:05:18.420
 the fourth Wednesday of the month, and then we could address the dates that we need to

03:05:18.420 --> 03:05:21.560
 as they come up.

03:05:21.560 --> 03:05:22.560
 I'm fine with that.

03:05:22.560 --> 03:05:23.560
 John?

03:05:23.560 --> 03:05:24.560
 I'm okay with that as well.

03:05:24.560 --> 03:05:30.360
 And then once our new vice chair comes in, she can provide her input as well.

03:05:30.360 --> 03:05:35.280
 And then we can move them with appropriate notice.

03:05:35.280 --> 03:05:36.280
 Correct.

03:05:36.280 --> 03:05:44.920
 So if there's a conflict on a Wednesday, we can change it and move forward.

03:05:44.920 --> 03:05:48.240
 So let's go ahead and do that.

03:05:48.240 --> 03:05:49.240
 Okay.

03:05:49.240 --> 03:05:50.440
 And they do need an action item for this.

03:05:50.440 --> 03:05:52.600
 So we will need a motion in a second.

03:05:52.600 --> 03:05:53.600
 Okay.

03:05:53.600 --> 03:06:00.800
 I also moved that we would have the fourth Wednesday of the month for our civil service

03:06:00.800 --> 03:06:01.800
 meetings.

03:06:01.800 --> 03:06:02.800
 Second.

03:06:02.800 --> 03:06:05.800
 All in favor, say aye.

03:06:05.800 --> 03:06:06.800
 Aye.

03:06:06.800 --> 03:06:07.800
 Aye.

03:06:07.800 --> 03:06:08.800
 No opposition.

03:06:08.800 --> 03:06:09.800
 Okay.

03:06:09.800 --> 03:06:22.800
 If there's nothing else, I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting at 637.

03:06:22.800 --> 03:06:23.800
 Thanks all to everyone.

03:06:23.800 --> 03:06:24.800
 Happy new year.

03:06:24.800 --> 03:06:25.800
 And say so moved while you're talking.

03:06:25.800 --> 03:06:26.800
 I'll be the same.

03:06:26.800 --> 03:06:27.800
 Say so moved.

03:06:27.800 --> 03:06:28.800
 So moved.

03:06:28.800 --> 03:06:29.800
 So moved.

03:06:29.800 --> 03:06:30.800
 Second.

03:06:30.800 --> 03:06:31.800
 Okay to say aye.

03:06:31.800 --> 03:06:32.800
 We are closed.

03:06:32.800 --> 03:06:33.800
 We are adjourned.

03:06:33.800 --> 03:06:34.800
 Yes, I agree.

03:06:34.800 --> 03:06:35.800
 Thank you all.

03:06:35.800 --> 03:06:36.800
 One second.

03:06:36.800 --> 03:06:37.800
 One second.

03:06:37.800 --> 03:06:38.800
 Okay.

03:06:38.800 --> 03:06:39.800
 One second.

03:06:39.800 --> 03:06:52.800
 Okay.