Mar 25, 2021 Civil Service Commission on 2021-03-25 3:30 PM

All right. Good afternoon. It's called the Thursday, March 25th, 2021 session meeting of the Civil Service Commission to Order at 3 31. Welcome to everyone. We have lots of with some guests, but most of all we have the stars of the day, which are the appellants. So plus, I think we probably need to take a second and welcome our newest commissioner at this particular time, Jamie Blanton. Jamie, we're wonderfully happy to have you along with us. It's a fun ride. You'll enjoy yourself. So happy to be here and happy to be serving the city in this way. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. So, okay. She's not really a guest, but since since we're introducing people, um, next order of business is receiving public comments. I understand we have no public comments, so we'll move right on. Next order of business is the approval of the minutes of the February 26th meeting, which is kind of an interesting situation in that Mr. Baines wasn't here and Lillian is not here. So, um, I looked at the minutes. They looked fine. So I would entertain a motion that we approve the minutes, unless anyone, I first have to do that. So I'd entertain a motion that we approve the minutes. I move that we approve the minutes. Second. I'm willing to second that motion. This month's minutes. Now, are there any discussions? I wasn't there, so I can't discuss. I looked it over. I did not see anything. I probably missed a date or two like we did on the last one, but nothing, nothing substantive that I saw. So, um, all in favor of approval of minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Next order of business is consider and hold discussion, take action on the temporary vice chair. John keeps moving around on me. He's trying to hide, I think. So, um, John, Jamie, would you like to do it? I mean, hopefully I'll be happy to move that John Baines be named our vice chair. I'll second that motion. Thank you. I did have a little discussion, Darryl. I guess I didn't realize is Lillian not going to be with us anymore? Not for a while. Stephanie, do you want to? So for a period of several months, I'll be standing in her place. Okay. So you're stuck with me until she is able to return. Okay. All right. So at least we have some, some, what's that, three in one oil. So if we're stuck, we can move a little bit. Is that okay? Exactly. Jamie, are you old enough to know about three in one oil? Yes sir. Plus my husband owns an automotive business, so I know lots of things that maybe I don't look like I should know. Well, good deal. Good deal. And Jamie, you and I served together on the, on the police commission. So I feel like that experience is what led me here. So I don't know if I should feel sorry or happy, but here we are nonetheless. Regardless, my motion still stands. So I would like to repeat my motion that commissioner Baines be selected as our temporary vice chair. And I seconded it. So if there's no further discussion, I'll say aye. Aye. Aye. There is no. Next is the certification to consider and take action on the certification list for a police lieutenant. You received that list in your agenda. I would, I would entertain a motion that we approve the, that we approve that list. Mr. Chairman, I do have a request please. Yes, sir. I don't, I, I lost my computer with everything on it. So I'm at someone else's computer. Is it possible to, to have the, the screen share put in place so I could take a look at the document? I'm happy to pull it up here if I have the capability to do so. Crystal's probably. I'll get with DTV real quick. I have to make me a host. Hang on just a second. Yes. I have to work with DTV on it. Okay. Who's on for police? Where's the, where's the police representative? There he is. Michael. Yes, sir. You're not driving, are you? I'm at the range, but I am sitting in the, in the car. Oh, okay. I'll let you kind of talk us through this one. When, hopefully when Crystal gets that information up. I mean, I have a question. So it looks, it looks very strange. So I get my new sound card tomorrow for my computer. But in the meantime, I'm in a different room in a different part of the office. So please forgive me for being a little bit ill prepared here. I have perhaps what I hope would be an introductory question. Would that be okay? Or I, this is my first meeting. So you guys will have to tell me if there's a Robert's rules of order or something I need to follow about my questions. I think we can probably go ahead and table this, this part of them and for just for a second, Jamie let you ask your question. So go ahead, even though my question is, um, what is the maximum possible score for this particular exam and certification? Michael, would you want to handle your, uh, yes sir. 210, um, a hundred points for the written exam, 55 for the research project and 55 for the oral presentation of that research project. So 110 from the research project and a hundred from the written test. Okay. So if I'm reading this report correctly, just so that I make sure that I'm following along under the exam point score, that's eight, these scores are out of a hundred and then out of the project scores, those are out of 110. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you so much. Any other questions? Yes, I did. I did have a question as well, uh, uh, Mr. Chair. So I do know that in the past they've indicated that on the lieutenants, the, uh, captains and, and the higher ups that you have a little more cognitive thinking rather than just test taking, there's some other things they look at. And so that's the project. Is it not where they're asking for a little more to kind of demonstrate your skillset, uh, beyond simply test taking? Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. All right. That's, I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. And what is the minimum total score to be able to be certified? They have to have passed the written exam with a 70 to go on and do the research project. Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair. I would, I would entertain a motion that we accept, um, approve. I'm sorry. The lieutenant certification. I'll second. Now, is there any other discussion? Got it. The cart before the horse, but that's okay. Any discussion? I think I've discussed already. All right. All in favor of approval of the police lieutenant certification list, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Certification list is approved. Next to order of business is the fire battalion chief. Um, what is this? An eligibility list. So crystal, can you get that one up for us? Yes. Who's representing fire today? Dr. Ramsey. Oh, there you are. You got lost in the screen share. So there you go. Thanks, Mike. Yes, sir. Talk to us a little bit. Tell us about it. Sir. So this is typically, um, if someone doesn't show up or doesn't take the test, then we don't leave them on there. Um, but we wanted to leave them there. There were three candidates that, um, submitted their intent to take the test. Only one of those showed up and took the test. Megan, she, um, she did pass. So her score is listed there. The other two, uh, were the, the members that filled out intent forms, but they did not show up for the test. Okay. That explains the zeros. Yes, sir. We just wanted to, um, make sure you know that we satisfy the, uh, communications rules that says you have to, there must be a minimum of two completed notices of intent forms for a promotional examination to be administered. Okay. I apologize. Hang on. I would entertain a motion that we, uh, approve the battalion fire battalion chief eligibility list. So moved. I'll second. Now we have questions. I just have a point of clarification that, uh, even though the other two individuals are listed here on the document, only the one that completed the examination is actually being promoted. Is that correct? Well, it's, um, an eligibility list. So we currently have no battalion chief vacancies. So, um, we, according to civil service, we must maintain eligibility list for all ranks. So she will remain on the eligibility list until the vacancy, if and when a vacancy occurs and then she would be promoted. But yes, she, she, she'll be the only one that remains on the eligibility list. Mike, when, when are the plans to, uh, administer another test? Our professional exams are as our entrance exams are given once a year, every month. That's a, that's a, I realize it's a, it's a small number of people, but that's a small list too. Yes, sir. So, uh, uh, officer Holesclaw, um, what's the game plan for, uh, expanding the department? Where, where are we in that in our plan and, and what are we looking at as far as a timetable? Considering battalion chief promotions? Well, just in general, you know, are we looking to, to, what's, what's kind of our growth plan? Do we kind of have an idea that we will be probably eligible for another battalion commander with no retirements within the next five years or would it be sooner than that? It's not expected. Um, Chief Hedges is online. If I may allow him to expand on that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. This is Chief Hedges. Yes. Well, last year we actually promoted three battalion chiefs. So that's actually the most battalion chief we've ever promoted since 1996. So we actually enacted a second battalion. So we don't foresee any future battalion chief creation on positions. It will only be based on retirements. And one thing I want to comment is our department over the past five to eight years, we've really transitioned to a younger department. So we've had this internal discussions. It's like, how do we promote people to take a battalion chief test? We've really got two different groups of people right now. We have captains that are old school that have eight plus years as a captain rank. And then we have another group that's like captains that have four to five years and they're wanting more experience in their captain's role. And the older captains are kind of, well, I'm tenured. I don't really want to change my work description, possibly my work schedule, start all over from scratch and start a new job. So we kind of have this middle area, this career right now that we're trying to figure out how can we get more people interested in taking the test. So as far as future plans the next five years, I don't foresee us adding another battalion chief as a new FTE in that timeframe. It'll just be based on retirements. Currently, how many battalion chiefs do we have? Currently, we have six in operations. Then we have five in administration. Thank you very much. Based on the challenges that you just described would help me to understand why you have some individuals listed here that might have opted not to take the exam if they knew sort of that there aren't going to be vacancies and some of the other challenges that you described. So what is the plan or what resources would be needed to help kind of continue to motivate folks within the department to pursue promotion and growth within our own department rather than transfer or get jobs in other departments elsewhere in our community? Well, you know, we don't really have an issue on personal retention. I mean, that's a good thing. They stay here at a full 25, 30, 40 years, honestly. It's just how we get them to move up from rank to rank. And one thing we're actually starting is professional development and succession planning. So we're actually taking captains. COVID has really been the key to this, and we're actually bringing them in and shadowing battalion chiefs so they see actually what the job is. So they understand aspects of the job. It's not just, you know, hidden agenda. What does that person actually do? You know, there's always a disconnect between operations and administration over what roles each play as well. So if we bring captains alongside battalion chiefs for like, you know, a week and they see the meetings they have to do and the new requirements as far as managing programs and resources to support operations, it kind of brings that awareness. And, you know, really, honestly, we've put a lot of thought into this is just, I don't know how at this point we get people to show up and take the test. It's just people are comfortable in their job, which that's actually to me, that's a positive thing. You know, if they're comfortable where they're at, that means something's going good. Some people just, they don't have aspirations to move further up in the department. And I was actually looking at our pay scale and it's adjusted annually by a new conferred agreement. But the difference between a captain and a battalion chief pay is only 16 to 18,000 from minimum to maximum. So some people can still work that shift schedule as a captain, work 24 on, 48 off, they can still work as side job. So they could potentially make more money remaining a captain as well. So there's a lot of different hurdles we're going to have to look at and come up with maybe creative solutions. And this is not a new problem. Or it's not a new phenomenon was there may be a problem now, but it's not a new phenomenon. It's been it's been going on for 20 years or more. So yes, sir, you're correct. People know whenever we're gonna have promotions, and you'll have more people take the test. I think last year we had five people take the VCs test and out of those five we promoted. So we just exhausted most of those people they were wanting to promote at that time. So yes, it's a very common thing that's been around for years and you know, I just don't have a easy fix at this point, it's gonna be a multi multifaceted solution we can't come up with one. Alright, any other questions? Motion to approve is on the floor. So all in favor of approval of the battalion chief eligibility list say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No opposition. Motion carries. Okay, now we're ready for the for the big show. Well, hanging around and staying with us. So first, we'll do the first and the next order of business is the captain's appeal. So we'll do the captain's appeals will remind you the procedure of the appellants will have an opportunity to present their appeal to us. Remember, appellants that we have seen the your written appeals without your name on them, and had a chance to kind of look at the materials, we have the materials with us. So in your presentation, be relatively brief. In the situations where there are multiple appellants. The second third appellants, I would ask you to not reiterate as so much the things that have already been said. But if you have new information to add to the to the mix, I welcome that we I we welcome that. So I don't want anyone to feel as though they didn't get their appeal heard. But we don't need to hear the same the same story three times we what we want to hear is a complete picture from two or three of you at a time. After the appeal, there'll be a chance for after the appellant presents appellant or appellants present their case. We will there will be a time for the commission to ask questions of the appellant. At that point, we'll at the end of that, we'll go forward with the fire response, which again, we've all seen. I assume that the appellants have also seen those responses now. Is that true? Michael, if they found them on the agenda. Okay, all right. And then after after a fire gets their opportunity, be questions and then the then if I'm lucky and somebody reminds me, we'll ask if there is anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. And then commission, we will move forward with motions and discussion and finally make a decision on on each appeal. So that's the procedure. Again, we'd like to keep it as brief as possible. But those of you that have done this before know that I I personally want to make sure that you walk walk out of the room at least sign off on zoom feeling like you got a chance to say what you needed to say for the commission to consider. But again, if we can keep it brief, unless we're going to send send out for breakfast in the morning, we can maybe move move forward. So being said, did I leave anything out Stephanie? No, you covered everything. Okay. Maybe you can be the one to remind me that I'm supposed to ask for the opposition. I always forget that part. First appeal and captain's appeals is item number two. Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Can you guys hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. First off, I want to thank you guys for being here today and taking the time to go over the stuff with us. I know that's a big commitment on your part, but I appreciate that as well from y'all. They did. You guys do have a copy of my appeal. You've seen what I have written. And the reason that I have killed this question is because the question on the test leaves out one important descriptor that was listed in the book that separates a smoke explosion from a flash over. So smoke explosion is the key to answer on the test, which is B. And I selected a flash over as the answer on my test. Um, like I wrote in my appeal, the key term is under smoke explosion. It states that smoke that is being trapped in a separate space and that separate space is the key thing here above the fire. It also has in the section on page 85 right above that table that smoke explosions typically occur in a trapped smoke area away from the fire. So all three of the things that it lists in the question on the test can happen in a flash over as well without it being in a separate room. So if you put separate in there, it definitely delineates between smoke explosion and flash over. But if you leave that away or separate from all three of the things on the test and the question can be construed to make you think flash over is an appropriate answer as well. All right. Thank you Mr. Johnson. Questions of the appellant. Mr. Chair, my books are in the next room. Excuse me for a minute. I'm going to get the books back. I have the, I have my excerpts, but I don't have the books. So, I'll be back in a second. I'll be back in a second. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Give me your page reference again, please. It is page 85. Some of the information is found in table 6-2 at the bottom and then also under that heading of smoke explosion right above that same table. Okay. So when I looked at your, at the question. Yes, sir. Let's, let's look at the components of the question. It says while evaluating the conditions, you observe that, excuse me, you observe smoke that is trapped above the fire. Yes, sir. Signs of growing fire. Signs of smoke starting to pressurize. So when you go to the table, those three are specifically listed as associated with smoke explosion. That's true. I do concede that. And I understand that. Okay. So explain to me how then, you know, there's always a good answer and there's the best answer. So, right. I understand. To your answer as the best answer. Okay. So also, if you look under flash over in that same table on the first one, it says turbulent smoke that has filled a compartment. So obviously if it fills a compartment, it's above the fire as well. So that takes it. I see. If you go to signs of a growing fire, it says rapid change in smoke volume and velocity. The only way that you get rapid changes in smoke volume and velocity is with a fire that is growing and starting to get larger and produce more turbulent smoke. Okay. So that takes care of number two as well. And then number three, the smoke starting to pressurize also falls under that first one that I said, and the one that I just listed, the turbulent smoke flow that has filled a compartment and the rapid change in smoke volume and velocity. So all three of those can be seen in the flash over definition as well. Is it word for word? Not as much as smoke explosion, but it's still, you can gather all three of those things from a flash over as well from that table. And the one key descriptor that separates smoke explosion from a flash over is that it's in a separate space away from the original fire or compartment that the fire is growing in. And that's listed in the paragraph above at the bottom of the smoke explosion section, where it says smoke explosions typically occur in a trapped smoke area away from the fire, such as a dead end hallway, the top of a stairwell or an uninvolved room above the fire or void space. It also lists that in the section down in that table, the smoke explosion, where it says, let me find it. That is smoke that is being trapped in a separate space above the fire. So that separate space and the away from are the two things that I feel left out can lead someone to believe that flash over is an appropriate answer as well. I will say, Mr. Johnson, rather than being specific, yours was interpretive. Yes, sir, it was. It was more just knowing what fire is and the different components of it and how it acts and putting all those things together. Is it word from word, word for word from the book for smoke explosion? It is in that table. However, I've done this long enough and been around long enough that I know that, you know, sometimes interpretive data is allowed to be taken as well. So point well taken. Thank you. Thank you. My question is that you made the comment that buildup of smoke is a sign of a growing fire. Wouldn't a continuous steady stream of smoke continue to have the same buildup? Would it not necessarily be an explosion of the fire or smoke is smoke is going to be present from any fire? It's the turbulence or velocity with which that smoke is pressurizing that separate separates a growing fire from one that may be just smoldering and the turbulent smoke flow under flash over and the rapid change in smoke volume and velocity leads you to know that that fire is growing because yes, all fires, even ones that are in the in stages will have some smoke production, but it's the turbulent and the change in volume and velocity that signify a growing fire. Any other questions for the appellant? I do not have my one question is about the above the fire. So when I was reading the your response and also sort of this section that talks about this specific piece, when I read it, and again, you're the expert, not me, but when I read it the being the above the fire was only described for smoke explosion. But when you were speaking with us just now, you said that it's also part of a flash over as well. So could you help me understand that with a little bit more clarity because that's not what I read in the book. Are you referencing table six to under the smoke explosion? Is that where you're referencing? Yeah, for the above being above the fire specifically. Yes, ma'am. Well, I guess I'm not real sure exactly what your question is, but I can try to answer it as good as I can. So obviously, any room where a fire is growing, there's an area above the fire above the fire, but below the ceiling. So you do have an area above the fire, obviously, even in one compartment. But it's the separate space that it talks about under smoke explosion, the separate space. And what you read from the paragraph above talks about two different areas, not necessarily the same room. But it says such as a dead end hallway, top of the stairwell, or an uninvolved room above the fire. So there's that same area above a fire, even in one compartment or one room. But then the smoke explosion definition of the book talks about separate spaces completely. So the primary crux of your argument then is that this particular question does not reference the separate space. That's what my appeal was yesterday. That was my appeal, that it left out the away from or separate from was my appeal basically to the question. Okay, but you would agree based on the question that a smoke explosion is smoke being trapped above the fire, has signs of a growing fire, and has signs that the smoke is starting to pressurize. So the three elements that are listed in the question, you agree that those are true of a smoke explosion, right? Yes, ma'am. I agree completely. I mentioned that. I'm not sure if you heard, but did mention that I agree with the question stating under the smoke explosion in the book, that table, it meets all three of those criteria. However, it also meets flat without that away from it. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, kind of continuing on that. Are you referencing that paragraph above the table on 85? Yes, sir. It's that one that says smoke explosion. Okay. So even though it says smoke explosion, you're kind of attributing it to the flash over. Well, what I'm saying is that under the definition of smoke explosion, it says that that occurs in an area generally away from the fire, which separates smoke explosion from other events such as a flash over. And that without that away from as designated in the smoke explosion section, it could be construed as flash over as well. Okay. All right. Hopefully, however, that language is under the description of smoke explosion. Yes, sir. It is. I can't deny that. Okay. And then when we go to the next page, we go to flash over. And as I've told others, I'm a CPA, I'm an accountant, I don't do fire for a living, but I'm trying to interpret and I'm trying to be sensitive. At the same time, if you go to the next page on 86, under flash over, I don't think there's as much interpretation there. Well, if you're talking about interpretation as far as what the table lists on 62, what the paragraph on fire or a flash over states and what the table lists are different things. Yes, sir. It doesn't have the same information in that paragraph on flash over as it has in the table under flash over that correlates the two activities, if that's what you're asking. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ramsey. Fire response. Yes, sir. The department's recommendation is to sustain the key. Well, the appellant is accurate in the fact that the question does not contain in a separate space as quoted in the book. The remainder of the question is word for word. The question does contain above the fire. And if you understand the warning signs for a smoke explosion and those for a flash over as stated in the book, then answer B is clearly the one best answer. I will try to clear up some of the discussion that y'all have had regarding smoke that's being trapped, which is a sign of smoke explosion. That smoke that has to be trapped in an area of space, wherever it may be, that's below its ignition point. So it's not going to auto ignite without help from fire, a spark or something being introduced into that space. The turbulent smoke from a flash over, if you want to see that, flip the page to page 87 and look at figure 6.5. That's turbulent smoke coming from what obviously that room or that entire structure is full of smoke, but that is turbulent smoke. And that's what a building looks like that is nearing flash over. Hopefully that helps. >> Okay. Any other questions for fire? Hearing none. Does anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion from the commission. >> My motion is to sustain the key, Mr. Chair. >> Is there a second? I'll second it just for discussion sake. >> Thank you. >> Now, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, are we ready to vote? All in favor of sustaining the key for number two, say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Number two, we sustain the key. All right. Next is question number five. And Mr. Galbraith, where are you? There you are. >> I'm trying to get my speaker working, Mr. Ramsey. Stand by. >> The story of my day, I'm with you, I understand. >> I got it. We're all working now. >> All right. Let's see now. That's incident safety. >> Yes, sir. >> Where is incident safety? Okay. >> You ready? >> Do your thing. Yes, sir. >> Well, within the question, the question is stated, it's talking about risk benefit evaluations are paramount when forming ISO functions at the high angle incident risk, at the high angle incident. The key question that they wanted is going to be risk benefit evaluations. I think that there's definitely two answers to this question, just due to the technicalities. If you read in this specific chapter alone that the first five or so pages, if you look to the first page, it starts on 217. If you go down to the -- on that page down towards the bottom, just in the little writing, it's discussing the application of special knowledge, skills, and equipment to safety, resolve unique and complex rescue -- to safety resolve unique and/or complex rescue situations. Then it goes on to talk about complex incidents requiring specialized trained personnel and equipment to complete the mission. So what the ambiguity of this question is, it's -- to ask this question and just have risk benefit as the key component of the incident safety officer function in a technical rescue situation, such as rope rescue, you have to have education and experience to perform the function. So if you go to 218, page 218, middle of the page, when the ISO safety officer does not have the technician-level training and/or certification, then you must have what they call an ASORT, which is an assistant safety officer, rescue tech. That's what that RT stands for, which is more training and experience. You have to have them there now, along with the ISO, to perform the stated question, which is high-angle rescue. And then 221, in the middle of that, table 15-1, if you go down, that's a sample of technical rescue categories and associated documents. Basically, what this is just telling you is pretty much reiterating, again, the need to have technical specialization, education and experience to perform the function. So with that being said, I think that definitely risk benefit has to be, you know, a component of performing incident safety officer functions within a high-angle rescue. But also, more importantly, according to how this book is and reading the book and studying the book and answering this question, you also have to have somebody who is educated and experienced to even get to risk benefit. Period. Questions of the appellant? My question would be, who ultimately makes a decision? The assistant safety officer or the safety officer? Makes a decision for what, sir? Whatever the situation is, as far as ISO functions, a high-angle incident. It would be the incident... I'm sorry, you cut out. No, I was just adding the rest of the question to it. I got you. Well, it's specifically within the question talking about the incident safety officer who is going to be pretty much the overseer of a high-angle incident. But he needs to have, make sure that there is education and experience there to perform the task. So that has to be in place before you even, you can't just have somebody who's, well, you know, I think I can do this. You have to have somebody who is educated and who has experience to perform the function of a high-angle rescue. But to answer your question, it's the incident safety officer who has to have, he's the authority of making sure that that is done safely. And he has the right people in position to perform it effectively and of course, safely. Okay. That being said, what is the paramount function of the ISO in that situation? Getting the right people and then the... I feel, am I getting another question? Yep. Ultimately, the ISO has to make the decision. They get all the input. What is the criteria that they use that's paramount for all functions at the high-angle incident? What does the ISO have to consider primarily, paramount? Well, I mean, it has to be risk benefit along with what he has, what is needed to perform the function in my mind. Okay. I'm done. So I have a question along the same line. My question is, let's assume that everyone involved, that you're working the incident with, has the same or similar education and training. If that was true, how is the ISO functioning differently than the other members of the team? It's just difficult to hear you. I'm sorry. So you're asking me what is different in this situation? So in a high-angle incident, if everyone involved has similar education and experience, what is the ISO's role? Just to oversee the incident. Yes, ma'am. To oversee the incident, make sure that everybody is functioning safely and making the right decisions. Thank you. Are there questions for Mr. Galbraith? Yes and no. I have kind of a question slash comment. How are you doing, Mr. Galbraith? Oh, doing great. Doing great. Good to see you. Good to see you. You know, if you were just to ask me off the cuff in evaluating situations, what might be the most important, I could probably off the cuff say education and experience. Okay. But when I go to the book and on page, what, 225, it makes that statement underneath that table. It says risk benefit evaluations are paramount when performing ISO functions at the high-angle incident. And that's really the same question there. It's verbatim. So I know that education and experience are important and that's going to prepare you to think clearly and properly in a high-risk situation. But specifically, I think the question was, you know, basically a verbatim quote. What words do you put into that blank of those four options there as the best answer? Your answer is a good answer. Education and experience, it handles a lot. But specifically, it says risk benefit evaluations are paramount. That's a direct verbatim quote. And I think that's kind of what they were looking for is that once you have all the education experience, then this other piece would be at the top of your consideration. I think it's both, if I was going to make it up. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. No other questions. Fire response. The department's response, the department's recommendation is to sustain the key. The question and answer are word for word from the book. The question is referring specifically to the high angle incident. The ASORT referred to in the appeal comes from the introduction to the chapter and addresses general competencies for the incident safety officer for any type of technical rescue incident. Answer A is the one best answer. Thank you, Mike. Questions for fire? I have none. Thank you. All right. Does anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Commissioner, I'd like to say something real quick. I've appealed this same question before on previous tests for the exact same reason that Mr. Galbraith appealed his and it was not overturned at that time either. He was sustained at that time as well. Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a motion on item question five. I move. So move to sustain. Thank you. I'll second. Okay. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Okay. Just a thank you to Mr. Galbraith for his scholarship. Thank you. Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So number five, sustain key. Next is item 60. Oh, Mr. Galbraith, you're back. You're back without leaving. I'm getting better at this computer stuff. Practice makes perfect. Out of legal considerations is built on this one. This is item 60. Okay. Let me get my notes together from my paralegal. I just wanted to just, you know, I'm peeling this question just because there's, it's, when you're lifting questions out of the book, it has to be, I believe that it has to come within context. And when you're going through six books, memorizing them, you're really trying to, you know, you're always trying to figure out and look and rack your brain, trying to think of triggers that you can obviously answer the most correct, you know, answer for the question. So within this question, critical to the proper function of the entire judicial system is the, and the key to answer is C, appellate process. This book, like I was saying, if you, if you read what I wrote down, I put the federal court system and throughout the book, throughout this book, it's a, it's a humdinger of the book, legal considerations of fire emergency, all they really, they really, really discuss and they go very thoroughly into obviously the different branches of the government. When they, when it, when it's read, when the question, when I read through the question, it says the entire judicial system, I'm going to think the federal court system. And so just within my notes, you're just finding within the book, page five, go to page five and you go to the top of the page. It says the United States constitution serves two primary functions. First, it serves as the supreme law of the land. So when we're talking about, once again, the legalities and you're talking about the court system, I'm thinking, okay, that's going to be, you know, that's when I'm reading that question, I'm thinking the federal court system, supreme court, then you go to page 21. Appellate courts, actually talking about appellate courts are where appeals from trial courts are heard. There are two levels of appellate courts in the federal system, the circuit court of appeals, the United States supreme court, once again, the federal court system. And then page 32, figure two, six, there's a flow chart and it pretty much all the courts, appellate courts, including the tax court, district court are all under the flow chart and at the top is the supreme court of the United States. So this is just another one of those, you know, with the distractors and everything within that. I'm thinking that the number one question to this question is going to be the federal court system. Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Roberts, do you have anything to add? Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. I apologize. I'm out of state and I do not have my material in front of me, but mine's a little bit different than Mr. Galbraith. If you'll refer to page 10, there's a sentence in there and obviously I don't have it directly in front of me, but it does state that case law is an absolute critical source of law. So my answer that I chose was D, knowing that that key term critical and it also states that it is a absolute critical source of law. That was my choice. I'll keep it as short as possible, but that's what led me to make my decision. Okay. Thank you, sir. Question of the appellants. Okay. Going once, going twice. Not so much as much as a dialogue, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Galbraith, can you hear me, sir? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. Good. Good. So I'm going to kind of start with the key. The key basically says on page 31, at the very top, it says critical to the proper functioning of the entire judicial system is the appellate process. So you got here and then you go to the question and the question is says critical to the proper functioning of the entire judicial system is the, and the answer there, once again, is the verbatim answer of the appellate process. The federal courts are an important part, but the ability like today is an appeal, right? It's an appeal. So even though we're not in a court necessarily, we do have an appeal here, and this is kind of critical to this whole thing called the judicial or the system of justice. So I think the federal court system is a good answer, but I think the best answer is the appellate process, as mentioned there on page 31. So as I kind of look through things, that's kind of what I said. You've got all kinds of courts, you know, you've got the city, the county, the state, the federal, you've got the maritime law, you've got foreign law, and integrated within all of those judicial processes, you have the appellate process, and I think that was kind of the thing that they were looking for. So that was my understanding, but thank you nonetheless for your response. I think, John, you're absolutely right in both cases. I think even case law and the federal system all depend on the appellate process. So they were thinking more specific where the question was more general. It's the process, whether it's a state court or an appeal for a question or whatever, it's the appeal process. Fire response. The department's recommendation is to sustain the key. The question and answer are word for word from the book. The question refers to the functioning of a system which involves a process, the appellate process. The book continues to explain the purpose and process of appeals. The book states previously on page 21, which the first appellant referred to, that all court systems allow for at least one level of appeals. In the first appeal received, for this question, the Supreme Court and federal court system are used interchangeably. The federal court system is made up of much more than just the Supreme Court. The appeal also addresses interpretation of law and the constitution, which is not the basis of the question. The second appeal refers to case law as being a critical source of law and states the book implies that case law is critical to the judicial system. The book clearly states the answer to the question and answer C, the appellate process is the one best answer. Okay, questions of fire from the commissioners? Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal? I did have a question of fire on this one. How did, how did the field do, Mr. Holeslaw, on the, on this particular question? What was it? Four out of ten got the question correct, but there were four got it correct. There were, there was one A, three Bs, four Cs and two Bs. So it was kind of all over the place. So is that indicative, you think, of a clear question and a clear answer, or maybe there's some work needed there? Maybe there's some work needed there. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right, I would entertain a motion. I think before I make a motion, I'd like to make a comment if that's okay. Jamie, we're supposed to do the motion first, then we can, then we can discuss. Okay, so I move to sustain for both counts the appeal of question 60. Okay. Okay, I second. Okay, now discussion. All right. This is my first meeting. You guys threw me into the fire here, literally. So I think for me, this question, gentlemen, I really appreciate your appeal. This, to me, comes down to the best answer and some good answers. So I think that Commissioner Bain's comments about revising this test question at some point in the future to make things even more clear is a good one. But I think overall, what I have heard feedback-wise today leads me to believe that the best possible answer is the appellate process, even though there are some other choices here that I think are valuable to the judicial system. So I appreciate both of you, gentlemen, for bringing it to our attention, but I do feel like it's the question that we need to sustain today. Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor of sustaining the keys, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No opposition. All right. Next is item 65. We have two appellates, same two appellates on this one. Let's let Mr. Roberts go first this time. Okay. Thank you, sir. As it stated in mine, well, let me go to the question. So the question just says it's an act. It's not specific to what type of an act. So I believe there are two correct answers. In mine, there's also what's called a duty to act, which is an act. And those arise from a statute, I guess, for lack of better terms. The book states both acts, whether affirmative or failure to act, both voluntarily and by statute. I feel that both of them are correct. Okay. You're saying that c and d are both correct answers. Is that right? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I apologize. I left that out. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. That's my job. Clarify. Make sure. Okay. Mr. Galbraith. I know y'all miss me. So this is just another, it's just another one, you know, tough question, tough answers. And so within this question, an act, whether affirmative or a failure to act must be voluntary in nature. If you go to the next page underneath the gray box, a duty to act may also arise when a, where a statute imposes a duty to act. So it's, once again, it's, it's in the context of the question. The question is voluntary in nature and a statute. So this is where it becomes, when you're taking the test, like I said, and you're going through six books, you're really trying to, what is the, you know, what's my best answer? Like Ms. Blanton says. And so this right here gives you both scenarios. You have a statute, which is a duty to act. And then you also have, it has to be voluntary in nature. So it's, I believe both answers are correct. Totally correct. Mr. Galbraith, can you give me that reference again, please? Your reference webpage. Next page over Mr. Baines on right underneath sidebar, the sidebar gray box. The page number? Ninety-five. Ninety-five. Okay. Thank you. Would you, would you indulge me Mr. Galbraith and give me your explanation again, please, as to why you believe there's an additional answer or a different, a more correct answer. The question is an act, whether affirmative or a failure to act must be voluntary in nature. The key question they want is voluntary in nature. If you go to 95 where, where I referenced you, a duty to act may also arise where a statute imposes a duty to act. So voluntary in nature and also the act in some form, according to this book and to this text, there's also a statute to act. Okay. Let me ask you a question, Brandon. I'm ready. You're driving along the highway here in Denton, speed limit 65 and you're going 75. Policeman, you drive by a policeman and the policeman decides that they're not going to pull you over in this particular incident, instance and let you go. Was that compelled by a statute or was it voluntary in nature? My act or his act? His. He's by statute because he's a peace officer, has to act. But he didn't. He voluntarily chose not to in that particular case in the circumstances. Absolutely. He's also a sworn peace officer. So he's under statute to act. Okay. But again, but he chose not to. So it's all voluntary. You voluntarily chose to speed and luckily he voluntarily chose not to give you a ticket. Can I ask you a question, Mr. Ramsey? Certainly. I'm driving down the road and I'm in uniform and I'm just off duty and a family member of yours gets into a wreck and I drive right by him. Do I have as a statute, as a civil service, as a firefighter, should I stop and render aid to your family member? I would hope that you would, but it would still be a voluntary act. That's statute I have to stop to render aid. That's a duty to act. Okay. Mr. Ramsey, may I add to that as well? Certainly. So what I read in the book goes along with exactly what Mr. Galbraith is saying. On 95, I believe it says something to do with a state that imposed a statute to a duty to act, a render aid type thing. And yes, Galbraith is 100% correct. We have a duty to act. We can't just pass it up. So that's where the question was not completely worded on which act they're talking about. There's a duty to act and another kind of act, which is an action, I guess. But just to add on to what he's saying, he's correct, I believe. My question is related to you. You gentlemen are both contesting. Is this correct that you think there are two correct answers, not just the one, right? So you guys both agree voluntary in nature is correct. Because you've said so to Commissioner Ramsey, right? Yes. But you both also believe that D is correct. Is that true? No, we both believe that, well, I speak for myself. I believe that D is also correct compelled by a statute. And in the book, it discusses certain states that put those statutes on drivers, not necessarily EMS workers, but drivers passing a scene of an accident or causing an accident and not rendering aid. We are both wanting both. Both are wanting CMD to accept CMD. Yes, sir. So as written, so option D says only compelled by statute, right? That's the question you guys got. Yes, but we believe both are correct. Okay. Well, that was my question as well, Jamie. Commissioner Blanton was that if you're going to put that descriptor in front that says only compelled by statute, that means you can't have any other answers. That's the only answer. Well, that's what we're questioning and there's no description of what this act is. So rendering aid or passing an accident can only be compelled by a statute, whereas other acts are also voluntary in nature. So there's no description of what act they're talking about. Right? The statement says you must do something. You guys have both agreed. You must, it must be voluntary. No, ma'am. Right? You don't agree. Okay. No, ma'am. So you're saying C is wrong then? No, I'm saying that an act as a criminal act must be voluntary in nature. An act put on by a certain state as to render aid, you have a duty to act. So that's what I'm saying is the question is not specific to, are you asking about a criminal act or the duty to act? So I believe that both can be correct depending on what they're truly asking of the question. Right, right. So now you said that both cannot be correct. That's what I was waiting for you to say. It's got to be one or the other. No, sir, I must have cut out. Both of them can be correct. A criminal act must be voluntary in nature. A duty to act can be voluntary, but in some states it's compelled by a statute. There are statutes written for that specifically. So let's go back to page 94. I realize you don't have your book, but I'm going to read it for you. Yes, sir. It says an essential element of every crime is an act. Yes, sir, criminal act. Of every crime. So this is a criminal act. It depends on how you read the question, I guess. I mean, there's-- No, I'm not at the question yet. I'm not at the question. I'm just reading this section in the book. Okay. Okay. In the book, it says this is 5.6.1. It says act. It says an essential element of every crime is an act. Okay. So this criminal act can be affirmative action taken or the failure to act. So that means you're committing a crime or you're failing to act is considered a crime. Yes, sir. We're talking-- Are we together? Yes, sir. I'd like to add also, though. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. In those-- in that context, you're talking about a criminal act. If you go to page 95, it states the duty to act also arises where a statute imposes a duty to act. And in the book, it talks about-- I don't remember exactly what state. They impose a statute for that. And Commissioner Baines, I just wanted to say, if you're reading in the context of this sentence that you've led up to the actual test question, they're leading this paragraph off with criminal act. Right, right. Then you get the test question and it just says ACT, act. So when you're taking the test and you're going through the test, I don't know-- we don't know what act you're talking about. Are you talking about criminal? Are you talking about-- are you talking about a statute? I just want to make that clear to the commissioners that when you're talking about the test and you're going through this and you're trying to put it out there, that it's hard to really differentiate what act are we speaking of because it's not listed. In the question. I agree with you. So when you come to this, there's a big element of confusion here. There's a big element of confusion. For me, there is. Yeah. So I'm just trying to make sure-- I won't say I go through every rabbit hole, but at least I try to take every possibility to see if I can see it your way or if I need to see it the way of the-- so I'm trying to make sure I ask the questions. And I'm not rushing. I'm not rushing. I'm taking my time. So if somebody's upset with me, I apologize for taking my time. So now this question then-- now I don't know if it's fair. I don't know if that's the right description to use, that when you're being tested on this particular item, if you can remember this specific place and this particular context. But when you come to the test, it says an act, whether affirmative or a failure to act must be-- it's a direct quote, but I think, like you say, the context there is a little difficult. I'd like to hear from the-- I don't know, Darrell, if this is the appropriate place, but I'd like to hear from the department, if we could. Sure, sure. I have a comment that I-- but let's go ahead and hear the department response. The department's recommendation is to sustain the key. The question and answer are word for word from the book, as you've all read. In both appeals they receive, they refer to a duty to act, which the book does state may be imposed by statute. An act is an element of a crime. A duty to act is an obligation which results from a relationship between two parties, which results in an action or a failure to act. In either case, both appeals request answer D to be accepted. Answer D is not a valid answer because it states only compelled by a statute. Answer C is the one best answer. Questions of fire. Step one, if response D had listed not the word only, but been just compelled by a statute without that additional term, would it have been also an acceptable answer? My interpretation-- Sorry, the question is to you, sir. Thank you. My interpretation of the book is-- or of the question. The question refers to an act. The book, as Mr. Baines read, says an essential element of every crime is an act. So to me, an act is an element of a crime. A duty to act is a different thing. So I think specifically the question is asking about an act. Thank you. Thank you. Darryl, you're the wise one here, sir. I'm going to have to defer to you, Dr. Ramsey. Can we bring in the lawyers? The reason I'm saying that is there's some confusion here. This is confusing because if you go back to 5.6.1, and that LEAD statement says an essential element of every crime is an act. So as a public servant, we have a-- public servants have a responsibility to serve. As someone said, you can't just drive by. Say, I didn't see that. That's just like me as a citizen. I see an accident. I think I can be convicted of a crime for failure to render aid when I saw a need there. If somebody saw me leave, that puts me in jeopardy. So there's a duty there. But to put that word only, throws more confusion in. So to me, I'm not the smartest, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I got a little sharpness, but to me, there's a little work that needs to be done here. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question of the fire department related to this question, and it's the same one that Commissioner Baines asked for the prior appeal. I would like to know, of the four responses, how many selected the correct response versus the alternate choices? Four selected the correct response, four selected D to selected A. And the other four selected C. Yes, yes, sir. Okay, there were 10 responses total. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. I'm going to entertain a motion. Are we going to hear from the opposition? Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Yes, sir. I would, please. Chad Neely. Yes, sir. Hi. How's everybody doing? Good. Good. I get that this is a confusing question. I understand as being one of the four people that answer the question correctly that I want to just kind of break this down in my head to you all of how I came to that answer. That makes sense? Yes. Okay, first of all, the question is referring to under act, 5.6.1 says act. So we're talking about an act specifically. A general duty to act is different. We're talking a general duty to act or general duty to do something. Is different than a general than an act and act. And again, to back up the department's response is an act specifically is an element of a crime. So we're talking specifically about an act in that response. And I understand that it can get confusing. And I understand the guys appeal in this because it is a big book and I get it gets confusing. But I want to go back to the point that it says only compelled by a statute. And their reference on page 95 says a duty to act may also arise where a statute imposes a duty to act. If that Senate said a duty to act only anywhere in that Senate says only, then I could get that argument, but when you have an answer, especially on a test like this that says only, that means only. That means that's the only answer. Anything above that can't be correct. So to argue that both answers are correct doesn't make any sense. So again, under the fact that it says act, 5.6.1 says act. This says an act. And then the question and answer are word for word verbatim from the book. And they're talking about an act as reference to an element of a crime, not a general duty to do something or act, an action, a general duty action. In other words, so let me say this. And Buck's response to, hey, if I drive by your family and they're in a wreck, do I have a duty to act? Well, in some states, you have a duty to act. And in fact, the book, I can't remember the two states, but there's two states that you can actually be criminalized for not doing something. But not all states are like that. In some states, as a paramedic, I can absolutely drive by and see some dude on the side of the road because this happens a lot in Denton, unfortunately, that as homeless man that is asleep on the side of the road, and I can keep on driving. And the fact is, I'm not going to get arrested for not checking on that guy. So there's no statute that only like my duty to act is not impressed only by statute. It would be my voluntary act to pull over and help that guy. And we're not talking about specifically in Texas, talking about across the country. So again, my argument is to get this question, to understand the question, you have to understand what the question is asking. The question is asking is under act, which it says 5.6.1. And the fact that the answer says only that they're arguing could be correct. Just the verbiage of the answer means two questions, two answers can't be correct. And clearly voluntary in nature is verbatim from the book and also correct. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. Thank you for listening to me. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you penalize these two gentlemen who undoubtedly have worked very hard and have also worked hard on their appeal. But if we make more than one answer correct, then we penalize the others that did get it correct. And we're talking about dollars here. And so I'm going to make a motion that we sustain the key with the caveat that we've got to do a better job on this question. It is confusing. And I apologize to Mr. Gilbreth and to Mr. Roberts that for the confusion, but I do applaud you for your tenacity and your scholarship. So that's a long notion, but I want to confirm the sustain the key. I'll second the motion. Now, do we have any discussion among us? I will say politely and very respectfully that I disagree with Commissioner Baines. I actually feel like this question is more clear than the one we discussed previously because of two key words, and that's must and only. So I was inclined or would have been inclined to entertain more possible dismissal of the question and acceptance of the appeal. But those two very distinctive words are what makes this very sustainable, in my opinion. Any other discussion? Motion on the floor is to sustain the key of 65. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Permissioners, before moving to the next question, I have just a suggestion. Yes, ma'am. Before going maybe into a rather detailed discussion regarding the appeal in terms of the question, I would recommend that we get the department's response first and then thereafter go into a more deeper discussion in regard to the thought process and analyzation of the appeal itself. Very noted. We have the department response, so we've kind of known what their response is all along. I know, it just allows the fire department to do a little bit more work. I love the fire department, I really do. But I think Michael would love to just be able to say a little bit more. Thank you, Stephanie. Next question is question 85, which is Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I'm here and since the department decided to accept my appeal, unless there's any further discussion, I'm good on this question. Okay. Why don't I think, I'm trying to think procedurally now. Okay. So bear with me. I think you probably should go ahead and read your appeal in and then get the response. Because if you take your appeal away, then we don't discuss the question. Okay, that's fine. Yeah, I don't mind. So basically, I appealed this question. I said that answer B is also a correct answer due to the fact that both beams and girders are structural members that can carry loads perpendicular to their longitudinal dimensions, as stated in the question. And the main difference is that girders just typically span greater distances than beams can. And this can be visualized in the picture in figure 9.17 on the bottom of page 248, and in the description of girders directly above that picture on the same page. So for this reason, I chose answer B as both answers B and C are correct. You're saying D is in delta, right? Yep, D is in delta is correct as well. Okay. Questions? I have none. Thank you. Do I respond? Yes, sir. The department's recommendation is to accept the appeal, as stated in Mr. Johnson's appeal. In addition to answer C, the book does state on page 248 that joist girders are heavy steel trusses used to take the place of steel beams as part of the primary structural frame, except both C and D. Okay. Questions of fire? No questions of fire. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? I would like to, please. Yes, sir. I believe since we've been given this answer quite often, I believe if you go strictly by what the book says, it's word for word that C, Charlie is the correct answer. As Mr. Bain stated that there's good answers and then there's best answers, and Ms. Blanton also stated that as well. There seems to be a lot of hang up on key words. Again, I apologize. I don't have the material in front of me, but joist girders, as in the book, is not one of the choices. It specifically states a girder. I would encourage you to visit that just a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Commissioner Ramsey, I just wanted to say for an hour and a half, we've been really sticking to word for word verbatim, getting the response from the fire department and the commissioner saying we're sticking to what is said in the book, word for word. Well, this is an example like Mr. Roberts says that this is in the book, stating being is a structural member and then the definition. I just wanted to reiterate that. Thank you. Can I speak again, commissioner? Do I have the opportunity since I'm speaking forward instead of against it at this time? Sure, go ahead. Okay. I just want to say that if the book also states that girders can be used in place of heavy steel beams as part of a structural, that is saying the same thing from the book, from the source material. I didn't pull this from an outside reference. It is word for word, just from a different section of the book. Okay. There's no comments from fire? No, sir. Are there additional comments? No. No, sir. Okay. Commissioners, questions? Okay. Let's kind of walk the line on this one here a little bit. John, let me ask a question. Is this our discussion or are we still involving the appellants? John? Well, the opposition has raised a good point that I think we need to consider. May I suggest, commissioners, that we confirm whether the appellant is still appealing this question or has he withdrew his appeal? No, I'm still appealing the question. I have not withdrawn my appeal. Okay. I'm just wanting to clarify that. I think, and I cause that because if he withdraws it, then we don't discuss it at all. So he has to read it in and ask to be considered in order for the appeal to happen. So, is that right? If we withdraw it. That is correct. And the reason we're asking that question is because I understand that the department has already accepted, you know, his appeal or his request to appeal and accepted what he recommended. But if he still obviously is going forth with the appeal, even though the department has already accepted it, then please move forward, commissioners. So, I guess I'm confused. So, since they accepted my appeal, am I now appealing against it? Is that what you're saying? Against them accepting my appeal? No, she's not. I'm speaking for you, Stephanie. You can jump in. In order for this appeal to go forward, the commission has to vote. Okay. And so, now it's on the table for us to discuss whether to accept what the fire said or what you said or what Mr. Roberts said. I mean, that's our job at this point. Okay. But it had to come on to the table before we could have that discussion. I understand. Thank you. Is that correct from my legal friends over here? Yes, this is my chronic. You don't have to accept the department's supporting the appeal. Yeah, that's up to you folks. Right. Okay. Now, discussion. I want to go back to the point of order, though. Like, Commissioner Baines, I agree with you. We need to have some discussion. I guess what I want to understand is, is it more appropriate for us to make a motion either to accept the appeal, which is also the shared recommendation of the department, first, and then for us to debate amongst ourselves what we should do? Or is it appropriate for us to entertain the discussion that Mr. Baines has encouraged and I think is right based on the comments we've heard now and then to make our motion? Does that make sense? What I'm asking, what I need to clarify. Jamie, we can go either way because if we decide we don't want, we make a motion, we can vote it down and have another motion. Yeah, I think the appeal is already properly before you since you didn't withdraw it. So I think you folks just decide whether to grant it or sustain it or grant it. Right. But our discussion can happen after a motion and we can defeat our motion and make another motion if we so choose. I'm just trying to keep up with you too. That's what I'm trying to do. So Robert's rules would say we need a motion on the floor in order to have a discussion. I move that we accept the appeal based on the recommendation of the fire department. May I offer a friendly amendment to say that we accept C and D as correct answers? I agree with your amendment and I want to include it in my motion. Okay, that's clarified then. I'll second that for the sake of discussion. So let's talk about it. Okay, now in the fire department answer, it said it used an adjective, "joist girders," where the answer is actually a girder. So I was wondering if we could kind of go back to the book and satisfy ourselves that we are speaking of the same thing and we're not speaking different things. So I'll go to the department to help me do that. Please, Michael. Yes, sir. So I guess to speak on what Mr. Johnson and what those speaking against the appeal said. So the question and the answer, as I've stated on all the previous appeals, it is in fact word for word out of the book. The book states, "Beam is a structural member that carries loads perpendicular to its longitudinal dimension." That's on page 79. Mr. Johnson's appeal, which references a girder, that is on page 248. And the two that spoke against the appeal, they have a valid point. It doesn't just say "girder." It says a "joist girder," both in the text and under the picture. So if you want to be specific regarding terms, "girder" is generic. The book refers specifically to a "joist girder," which can be used in place of a heavy steel beam. So, Mike, I have a clarifying question, please. Yes, ma'am. Remember when we took the SAT 100 years ago and there were those analogy questions, like beam is to girder and girder is to beam and all that stuff? You remember like way back in the 10th grade? So what, because I work at a nonprofit and I studied journalism, so I like words, but I don't know anything about construction or structural engineering of any kind, okay? So is a joist girder a type of, I would assume, is a type of girder and there are other types, right? Yes, ma'am. And then a beam, which is the other answer that we accepted, would a girder be, and I think if I understood Mr. Johnson correctly, a girder is a specific type of beam. Would that be correct as well? Yes. Okay, so for me, if they're true synonyms, right? A joist girder is just a type of girder, but a beam and a girder are synonyms. Is that true or not? They may be used in the same instance, yes. Like you could replace one with the other. Girder and a beam? Yeah. Well, if I were giving you my opinion, then it would be my opinion. If we go out of the book, the only time it references a girder is on page 248 when it discusses the joist girder. But if I was to look up what it says right here, can be used to take the place of a steel beam, right? So it's essentially a type of beam replacement. But I totally understand where the other two gentlemen are coming from too, that we were hardliners in the other situation. To me, this just seems like a synonym issue. When you look at the glossary in the back of the same book, there is no entry for girder. There is in the index, but they do talk about beams, which led me to believe that they were synonymous. [BLANK_AUDIO] Other discussion? [BLANK_AUDIO] My heart bleeds too much, Mr. Chair. So I have difficulty in that regard. [BLANK_AUDIO] I'm a bleeding heart. Do you get that? [BLANK_AUDIO] I get it, I get it. [BLANK_AUDIO] We'll stop and render aid. [BLANK_AUDIO] No, that was another question. Sorry, bad joke. [BLANK_AUDIO] I apologize. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Where's Stephanie when I need her? [BLANK_AUDIO] She should be shaking her head at you too also. [BLANK_AUDIO] Well, Mr. Chair, it does specifically say under beams, it gives a synonym as girder. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I think that just means that what I moved, we should do. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yeah, so Jamie, you wanna make a motion on this one? >> The motion's already on the floor. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay, so we just need to take a vote then, huh? [BLANK_AUDIO] All right, motion on the floor is to accept answers C and D. [BLANK_AUDIO] All in favor, say aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] Aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] Opposed? [BLANK_AUDIO] Abstain? [LAUGH] Okay, John, did you vote affirmative? >> I voted in favor of accepting C and D. >> Okay, I didn't hear you, so okay. [BLANK_AUDIO] So we accept C and D. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you, commissioners. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yeah, next is 91. [BLANK_AUDIO] And let's see, there's only one, so Matt, you're on. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Given recent developments, I'd like to withdraw that appeal, please. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Positive? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes, sir. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay, 97, Mr. Johnson. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> All right, I'm here. [BLANK_AUDIO] So I guess I'll read my appeal again and then we'll go from there. [BLANK_AUDIO] So I feel that answer A is also a correct answer to this question due to the fact that the keyed answer B, crisis, and the answer that I selected, A, adversity, are used interchangeably in the reference source material when dealing with the concept of revealing character. This can be evidenced on pages 235 and 236 in the book, the same place where the keyed answer comes from. The terms crisis and adversity are mentioned the same number of times in this section while talking about this topic. For this reason, I chose answer A as both answers A and B are correct. [BLANK_AUDIO] And I would like to add as well that last year, this question was on the driver's exam. [BLANK_AUDIO] And so basically between last year and this year, they flipped two of the books. This book was on the drivers last year. This year, it's on the captains and they took one of ours and put it on the driver's test this year. [BLANK_AUDIO] And last year, this appeal came up. Six candidates appealed this last year for the same exact reason I appealed it. And it was an accepted appeal to where they took two answers. One of the answer being the one that I selected this year. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay, questions? Questions of the appellant? [BLANK_AUDIO] Five response. [BLANK_AUDIO] John, do you have a question? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> We're gonna, I do, but I'm gonna let the fire response. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Okay, fire response. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> The department's recommendation is to sustain the key. [BLANK_AUDIO] The question and answer are word for word from the book. [BLANK_AUDIO] The appeal states that adversity is used interchangeably with crisis when dealing with the concept of revealing character. [BLANK_AUDIO] The book refers to adversity when leading a team and when faced with making high pressure decisions. [BLANK_AUDIO] Additionally, adversity is described as a problem or opportunity that may be faced by you or your team. [BLANK_AUDIO] The book refers to crisis as a big problem that once people are able to overcome, will gain the confidence, ability, and mindset to do it again. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Answer B is the one best answer. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I did have a question of Mr. Johnson, please. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes, sir. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. Johnson, can you give me the context where you're drawing the use of the synonym, as you said? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes, sir, it talks about on the page 235, the top there right up under problems or opportunities, the first sentence, it's every adversity you and your team will encounter is either a problem or an opportunity. [BLANK_AUDIO] And then it goes on to list adversity one other time and I'll try to find out exactly where that is. [BLANK_AUDIO] But it's in that same paragraph that the crisis is from. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Other questions? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> My question is for you, Mike. In regards to the comment that Mr. Johnson made in his appeal, that this same question was on the driver's test and was accepted at that time. Can you confirm that information? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yes, ma'am, that is a fact. [BLANK_AUDIO] I did not realize that prior to compiling the department's responses. [BLANK_AUDIO] I did review last year's appeals and it was in fact an appeal last year. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> So I'm a little curious why then you would not change the department's response to accept it in this case as well? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> So the appeals are reviewed by three chief officers, and we take the responses from those, the majority of the responses from those, and that's what creates the department response. [BLANK_AUDIO] So this year when this appeal was reviewed, the reasoning that I put in the department's response, those were the comments that I got back. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yeah, and I'm not sure- >> I'm not trying to be hard about it, but there's not a process where you go by reviewing past appeals or whatnot as part of the process beforehand? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Yeah, this is Mike, I'm not even really sure that what was done in the past necessarily is relevant cuz different people may have made different arguments and we don't know exactly what the commissioner said. So I'm really not sure the propriety of saying just because it was ruled one way before should really have any bearing on what you folks do. [BLANK_AUDIO] If you think it's relevant, you wanna consider it, but again, we don't know what the arguments were last time, so I don't think that should necessarily be controlling. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> But to be clear, I'm not that Mr. Johnson necessarily did this, but we could go back to the public record and review that, right? >> I actually have- >> I don't have a plan for us to do that. I don't want Commissioner Baines and Commissioner Ramsey to think I'm gonna be looking at that record or whatnot, but just to be clear, that is something we could do, correct? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Again, I don't know what was done a year ago really is relevant or even admissible. Again, it's a different test. You're looking at it, this test in this time under these circumstances, not what happened a year ago on a different test with different appellants. [BLANK_AUDIO] So I mean, ultimately, I think it's up to the commission to make a decision if you wanna give that any weight. But I just have some concerns about considering something from a prior appeal. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Commissioners, could I say? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Go ahead, Greg. >> I just wanna say that I did go back and I pulled all the appeals from last year. So I have all six candidates from last year and there are appeals here who filled the question. And I also have the department's response printed out. And the department's response was, and I can read it. It says that reasoning except A and B. The entire section is referring to adversity and the crisis quote is embedded in this section. The reader can come to the conclusion that crisis means the same as adversity in this section. So my question is, if we're going to appeal it and overturn it and accept multiple answers one year, why then would we go back the next year and not accept that when the same question has been appealed and the test taker has the same problem with it that occurred last year? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Well, I agree with Mr. Cronick in that it's a different time. It's a different panel. I think that the fire department should have done that. Cuz hopefully the fire department looks at all of the appeals and says, is there a problem with the question that causes this to be an appealed answer? But we do have to understand it's a different set of people taking the test. It's a different set of people who are, excuse me, I'm running out of battery. The different people taking the test, I mean there are different eyes looking at it, looking at it differently, and that in and of itself could cause an issue. But again, I think the fire department should have, should catch that one. I know that I'm gonna skip something right now, but frankly, when I read the section, it kept talking about adversity and then down there it says crisis is. So I don't think this discussion about what happened last year, it's not making an influence on me. I looked at the book and I personally agree with the appeal based on that, not based on something I didn't even know ahead of time. So again, and that's just me and my opinion, and you come to this with an opinion waiting to be swayed in a different way. And so I think this is probably a moot point as far as what happened last year. Not for you, Mike, it's not a moot point for you. But us as a commission, I think it's a moot point. I think we look at it this year with our sets of eyes and under our circumstances this year and go with it. Are you making a motion then? Well, let me ask a question that I skipped. Does anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Yes, sir. Okay, go ahead, Matt. Again, it's puzzling to me how we're able to deduce information based off feelings for certain questions, but we're hard set on questions being directly worded word for word from the book. It's puzzling to me and I would encourage you to please accept the key answer and inside along with the department's answer. Thank you. Okay. And commission, I did found that other area where it referenced adversity. Right above where it says crisis on 236. Just above that, it says when it comes to leading a team, great things often follow adversity, which is synonym for crisis. Okay. I'd like to make a motion. Thank you. I would like to make a motion that we accept the appeal and that both answers A and B, adversity and crisis be acceptable for question 97. I'll second that. Now we can discuss our discussion place now, right? Yes. So I was prepared to feel this way before Mr. Johnson shared his additional information. I will say that the reason I asked the questions about it is because it frustrates me because I feel like the department should have done their due diligence here and maybe reviewed the question before putting it on the other test. And so to me, the additional information is for me, another nail in my solidifying my opinion because we could have saved some time and some energy. Yep. John, do you have discussion? I have no discussion. All right. Motion is to accept A and B as answers to question 97. All in favor, say aye. Aye. I'll say no. Opposed? No. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to take just a second. That way, if the captain candidates want to go to dinner, they can. But I want to, again, I say this all the time and I'm sorry, get used to it. Then you'll hear it many times. You may not be happy with our decisions. And I'm sorry, but I hope you felt like you got a chance to say what you needed to say. But most of all, as we've kind of referred to earlier, guys, that you take the time to study all of these books. You take the energy and the initiative and the choice to take the test over and over and over again, if you do, or if this is your first time. We appreciate the fact that you are trying to make yourself and our department and our city a better place by your increased knowledge and education. It's you do things that most of us wouldn't do. You run in where we're running out. And we applaud you for that. We thank you for that. And I encourage you to continue to grow in your education and in your service to our community. So thank you for all you do every day for all of us. Okay, next item on the agenda is the driver appeals. Mr. Chairman, can I advocate for a 10-minute break? 10 minutes? I need to make myself a cup of coffee. I need to make myself a cup of coffee. Let's go with five and see what happens. Okay, all right. Thank you. We'll do five. We'll be back in a minute. We'll suspend for five minutes. Thank you. At about 540. All right, thank you. Okay, meeting of the Civil Service Commission at 540. First appeal for the driver's exam is Cody Kessler. Mr. I'll make this pretty short after reading it and hearing the captain's appeals. It is word for word out of the book, a section of it. I guess I just disagree that the definition of tandem pumping is in the book is a form of relay pumping which is used to boost pressures. It says, you know, it's needed when a pressure is higher than a single engine is capable of supplying where to me the way the question read, I pick none of the above because that is what relay pumping is in the book. It's used when pumping water from a discharge to an intake of other engine or engines to send water down a line. Like I said, I'll let y'all do the interpretation. I don't have much argument on it. It's just not the definition that the initial definition that tandem pumping was. Okay. Questions of the appellant? I have no questions of the appellant at this time. Our response. The department recommendation is to sustain the key. The question and answer a word for word from the book. Answer B is the one best answer. I had stated on my response that the appeal that the definition is from the book kind of to speak what Cody just said. I don't consider the question a definition. I consider the question a kind of an explanation of how tandem pumping works. So that will be my input. Questions of fire? Hearing none, anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. On question 23. I will move that we sustain the answer choice B on question 23. Okay, I'll second it. Discussion on the commission? Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining the key to 23, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, motion carries. Next is Brandon Hillis. Question 29, also from pumping an aerial apparatus. I'm here just a second. Okay, I don't know your name, so. I would like to withdraw my appeal on question 29. Okay. There's also word for word from the book. All right, thank you, sir. The next appeal is question 48. Brian Gilmore. And he's not with us, so I will read it into into the record. Question says fire door closers are not used on which type of fire door? A, rolling, B, swinging, C, sliding, D, any of the above. The keyed answer is rolling. Answer A. Mr. Gilmore says that there is no true correct answer. The question asks, the answer is rolling. Rolling doors use a fusible link. A fusible link is still a type of door closer for a fire door, and generally is incorporated on doors that only close during a fire event. So don't ask me any questions, I'm not the expert, but we will go with the fire response to the appeal. The department's recommendation is to sustain the key. The book states door closers can be used with sliding or swinging fire doors. That's the first paragraph on page 160. So the best answer is A, rolling doors, because that is not listed. Stated in the appeal states that a fusible link is a type of door closer. A fusible link is not a door closer. A fusible link, this is a quote from the book. Under fire conditions, a fusible link disconnects the door from the operator, and allows the door to close using a spring-powered door closer or a system of suspended weights. So the fusible link disconnects from the door from whatever is holding it open. The door is closed, according to the book, using a spring-powered door closer or a system of suspended weights. So the department's recommendation is to sustain the key. Okay, any questions of fire? I have no questions of fire. And you said the gentleman's not here with us, right? Right. Okay, the only question I had for Mr. Gilmore was when I read the material, I did not see where he was referencing his answer. So if he were here, that would be the only question I would have. I did see the answers for the two types of doors that you can use door closers with, and then the answer was which one can you not use door closers with. And I didn't see any justification for his answer. I was looking to hear his response. I would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion from the commission. So moved that we can sustain the key. Second. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining the key on question 48, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, motion carries. Question 70, and there are actually three appellants. Two are here, one is not. I will try to, I'll read his appeal into the record even if it does duplicate. So let's see, who's first? Mr. Hillis. Yes, the question is, never make roof ventilation holes where they will cut off your means of escape. What's the following statement most correct? The answer is C, which is always have a second way off the roof besides your opening. Nowhere in the book does it state using the opening as a egress and never has it ever been taught in the fire. Would you ever use the hole you just cut as a means of egress? So I think that is a bad question. I picked as the most correct would be A, which states always make a roof cut with your back to the edge of a roof. The reason I chose that would be the second means of egress could be a ladder thrown to the edge of the roof behind you. So I think C is incorrect because you would never use the hole as a means of egress. Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Kessler. I agree with Mr. Hillis. That's the caption in the book in that picture. It does state, you know, you always need to have a second means of egress, but in the fire service, we would never use the opening that we just cut as a means of egress. That doesn't seem very smart. If the question was, if the answer was worded differently, I could see where it's come, but it's the being worded the way it is. Answer C is not correct. Okay, Mr. Davis is a PO. Mr. Kessler, what was your, what was your answer? Let's see here. I believe I chose A as well. Keep your back to the edge of the roof. That is the most correct. And that's also what you selected, correct, Mr. Hillis? That's correct. All clear with choosing A. Thank you. Actually, Cody, you said that the answer choice is worded wrong. You said other. You didn't give us an alternative, but just for the record. Yes, sir. No, this is my first appeals process. So I'm learning here. I didn't know about all this. My excuse, too. Mr Davis' appeal says that I would, it's 251 states that quote, I would never place a hole where it might interfere with our intended route of egress. End quote. Answer A states that very thing. The answer is wrong because the question asked for the most correct quote, end of quote answer. DfD would not make a vent hole with, yeah, with the hole being one of our means of escape. So his was that it should, his appeal says that it should be A rather than C. So yeah, any questions? Other questions for the two appellants that are here to answer questions? I did have a question. I wanted to find out where in the reading did you draw your answer from? This is Cody. I can go first. Honestly, on that question, I couldn't find when I was reading those, the answer choices, they, that was the most correct, not because it was in the book, but because that was, out of all the answer choices, that's the only thing that made sense. Like I said, the key word on that was the, you know, when you're reading the question, the answer choices, B says always make a roof cut with your opening between you and the outside of the wall. We would never do that. And this, the tactics book that this is in is a lot of common sense material for the fire service. Answer C, which is what we're appealing, says always have a second way off besides your opening. It's very vague to all of us. It's saying the opening is in the hole you're cutting because you're talking about cutting the hole on a flat roof and then never place yourself on a flat roof for the purpose of opening a roof. That does specifically say that in the material, I believe. I don't know where at. So that was where, so that was where I came up with A as the most correct. I couldn't remember if I read that in the source material, but that was what made the most sense to me. But on that page cited, the picture caption at the top of the page, it does say always have a second means of egress, but it does not say use your opening. So that's where I just believe the question, the answer choice is worded very poorly. Okay, thank you. Mr. Hillis, do you have anything? Nothing further to add. Okay. Fire response. The department's recommendation is to sustain the key. The most correct answer is C. The book emphasizes the importance of having a second way off of a flat roof. First, on page 250 in the last paragraph, the book states, be sure you have at least two ways off each roof. Second, on page 251 under figure 925 at the top, always have a second way off a roof. Two of the three appeals state that A is the correct answer. Answer A is not stated in the book. Answer B is in the book, which is something you never want to do. And answer D is just a distractor. If you didn't place yourself on the roof, then you wouldn't be opening it. So C is the one best answer. Thank you. Questions of fire. I would like to know the selection breakdown of this question as well. So we have two of three that chose A. I'm curious how many folks took the test and what did they choose? 23 people took the test. 13 people chose C. Nine people chose A. One person chose B. My question is a little more general, and it gets at what I think the appellants are after. So does this book count the vent opening as one of the ways off a flat roof? Really? That's a good question. I mean, the second part of that question I could not find in the book. So I don't know. I mean, they're right. The appellants are right. Your opening is not one of the ways off the roof. I get that. So that's a legitimate question. I mean, that's not stated in the book, but it is referenced in the question. Mr. Commissioner, if I may add to that, I think that's kind of where we were appealing. The first part of that question is correct. You always want a second way off. It was the end of the question that makes it not correct. But even if they say a second way off the roof, they're counting it, I guess, as one of the ways. So then the second part of the question really is valid, because it says besides your opening, the book appears to be counting that as one of them. It's kind of weird, but do you see where I'm going? Am I wrong? Yeah, I don't know. I think that was the kicker, is no one would ever use the opening they made to go off a roof. That's really the question. You think that, okay, you have two ways off the roof besides the vent hole you just made. Correct. So the book does talk about you always want to have two ladders. You set two aerial ladders to get off a book or to get off a roof. That way you always have a second means of egress. You typically on different sides of the building. So like I said, not arguing, you always want to have a second means of egress, but the book doesn't say that an opening would be one of them. To me, that's what makes that answer choice wrong. Any other questions? Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Okay, commissioners, I would entertain a motion. I would like to move that we accept these three appeals and that answer A and C be acceptable on the test. I'll second. Yes, let's kind of go through that number A. Help me. I might be the slowest one in the bunch, so I need some help. It says here, always make the roof cut with your back to the edge of a flat roof. What does that mean? With your back to the edge of a flat roof. Who are you asking, commissioner? Well, we've got nine people, right, that answered number A, and we have two of them here, and we have the department. I'd like to hear how this is a possibility or not a possibility. I'd love to hear from you, Mike. I would like to hear how it is a possibility as well. When you're cutting a hole in the roof, obviously you're cutting a square or rectangle, so you're going to be moving around that hole while you're cutting. So standing in one place or constantly having your back to one edge, I mean, I've never heard of that being a tactic that we follow. And as I stated, answer A is not addressed in the book. Well, that was kind of my idea, is that I couldn't visualize it. With your back to the roof, what does that mean? The edge of the roof. Yeah, you're back. What does that mean? You're back to the edge. Here's where I'm struggling, is that when you said, Mike, that you generally agree that the, like, I don't remember exactly how you said it, right, but you said that the appellants make a good point about the two parts of the question and how taken separately they kind of make sense, but together they don't. If it was up to me, maybe this motion is available to me, and I'm just new here and didn't know, but if it was up to me, I would have thrown the question out altogether because you had so many folks that made both those choices. So in my opinion, this is just a not great question, and I don't want to penalize people for your agreement that it's not a great question, but I also don't want to, I don't know, I feel like I'm in a no-win situation because even in the response, it says, you know, you give two page references. On page 50, it talks about a second way off. Even your appellants agreed you want a second way off. They just don't want it to be the hole they just cut, which they said is part of their appeal. And then on 251, where you reference the diagram, again, we want two ways. We just don't want the hole, and I think that was the point that Commissioner Ramsey was making as well. I just think it's written very poorly overall, and I tried to pick a motion that I thought would help me to help them, you know, but I, you know, I don't know what to do. I feel at a loss because I feel like there's no winning here. When I look back at answer A, the only thing I came up with was that it's a way off the roof that doesn't involve the vent hole at all, and keep you back to the edge means that you're keeping that vent hole in front of you. And so I thought that C is still a better way to say it, although I'm not sure about the opening. Jamie, just for a point of clarification, we typically, we try our best not to throw a question out unless it just is really, really bad because that affects every question on every test from that point on. Crystal explained that part to me, which is why I made the motion that I did, but you had nine folks out of 13, right? Nine out of 24. Nine out of 24. Nine out of 24, which is still, I don't know. But yeah, that's also, I mean, I haven't said this before today. That probably is not an issue that should be a deciding factor for us. How many people got the question right or wrong? That probably isn't really a good issue for us to be dealing with. I want to go, but I don't think that's an issue that, because a different set of people would have a whole different set of results. So I don't think that's the issue at this particular point. That's where I struggle is our appellants here today, and even in the answer of the third gentleman, pretty much acknowledged they knew D was wrong and they knew B was wrong. But because of the way the question was worded, they didn't really feel like they could choose C safely. So they just went with the other one, thinking, well, maybe I didn't read something correctly. And I have a real hard time too, because we have been pretty sticklers here today about what's in the book and what's not in the book. But the point about the ventilation holes, I mean, I read this part five times in preparation for this meeting, trying to figure it out, and I couldn't figure it out. For me, if I'm trying to cut a hole in the roof with my back, you know, I'm just trying to visualize a flat roof. And then I want to be close to the edge, but not that close, you know. And so you're basically, you're going to have to make a square, I'm thinking, or a circle that you have to make it where you're going to, it's going to be a it's going to be a little awkward. So to me, that was a difficult one. Of course, B and D were not really answers. So for me, my deductive reasoning said it was C, but I wanted to hear why people chose A. I wanted to hear that. What was the motivation for that? Well, since it's us in discussion, I mean, I think the best solution to this is to approve the motion for A and accept A and C, rather than just C. And then, Mike, make note. Yes, sir. Next time. So that's, I mean, I think that's the best solution at this point, to remove confusion and then fix it. Yes, sir. Henceforth, so. We need to actually vote, right? Do what? We haven't actually voted yet. You can't tell them what to do until after we vote. Well, I think I know where we're going. Any other discussion? Call the question. Motion is to accept A and C. All in favor say aye. Aye. I'm waiting for John. I'm only going to accept C. Thank you guys very much. So John, you're actually voting no on this motion. Just to make sure, for clarification purposes, you're voting no on. I'm voting no. I'm voting no. I'm going to vote no as well. Okay. And I would then, then I would accept, I would entertain the motion. Entertain a motion. I'll vote to sustain the key. Second. I'll ask the question simply because Mr. Robert Summer would not be like it if I didn't ask it. Any discussion? No discussion. For me. All in favor of the motion to sustain the key, say aye. Aye. Aye. No. No. Motion carries. Next is question 95. And Jason, you're on finally. So, so the question 95 comes from page 171 in extreme ownership. It's the very last sentence of the first complete paragraph. To quote the book, it says frontline leaders must also have trust and confidence in their senior leaders to know that they are empowered to make decisions. So the test leaves out the word also. So if you're going based on the quote from the book, the word says also, or the, excuse me, the sentence says also, also indicates two, which tells me two answers. So that's why I appealed and that's why I think both A and D are correct answers because it says senior leaders and their subordinates many times in the book. Okay. Thank you, sir. Brandon. That is the basis of my appeal is the word also earlier in the same paragraph. It speaks of the junior leaders throughout the book, junior leaders and subordinates are used interchangeably. I have a couple examples on page 31. The term, just out of two sentences, it says a leader does not take credit for his or her team's success, but bestows that honor upon his subordinate leaders and team members. When a leader sets an example and expects this from his junior leaders within the team, the mind sets to the team's culture at every level. It's just one example and there are a couple others where subordinates and junior leaders are used interchangeably. And then back to the page 171 in the same paragraph, it starts out with where the leaders must place full faith and trust in their junior leaders. Then it goes on to say also in their senior leaders indicating the two answers of A and D. The department recommendation is to accept the appeal and accept both A and D as correct answers. The book states that frontline leaders must have faith and trust in junior leaders as well as stating frontline leaders must have trust and confidence in their senior leaders. Now, I guess the question for you is, are junior leaders, is the term junior leader and the answer of their subordinates the same thing? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I did identify this question as a previously used question, which was confusing. So the department's recommendation is to accept A and D. Okay, questions? Mr. Ramsey, this is Cody. I would like to pose. Okay, I was coming next. Okay, sorry. I know when you're ready. Go ahead. Okay, in that paragraph that they're talking about, I see where they're talking about the keyword also, but in that paragraph, it never mentions subordinates. It just mentions junior leaders. It also just says that they must have trust in junior leaders wherein the question, the key word is confidence, trust and confidence, which is senior leaders in that paragraph. It's word for word in the book. I know we've done a lot of that today. You know, it's off keywords. One is trust. One is confidence. Nowhere does it say confidence in junior leaders, confidence in subordinates, confidences in your senior leaders. Okay, thank you, Cody. Finally speak also. It is not exactly word for word since they do leave out the word also, which indicates the two answers. That's it. It's almost more word for word, leaving out one, two word. Okay, commissioners, questions? No, I'd entertain a motion. I make the motion that we sustain the key of accepting both answers. That's I'm sorry. Sustain the key means that it would be D only. If you accept A and D, then make that motion. Well, I thought that there was a change made on that page where it says department response was accept. But we have to approve. So the motion has to be to approve A and D, to accept A and D. Okay, I will amend my motion to say we will accept both A and D. Thank you. It's confusing and it's late. That's why you're the big honcho. Review the vice chair thing. No, no, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. No, we cannot. All right, any discussion? No. All in favor of accepting A and D, say aye. Aye. No opposition. Okay. Again, I won't make it as long, but for you guys that are doing the drivers, same thing I said to the others, that you take the time and the energy to study, to try to make yourself better for all of us is noted and truly appreciated. More so than most people in the city will ever know. And so thank you. Don't let this experience, however you feel about it, deter you from doing it again in a year, whenever the test is given again. But thank you for your service to all of us in the community. I'd also like to say thank you for your diligence, your scholarship, and your hard work to improve yourselves and to improve the community. Thank you very, very much. All right. If I can find my agenda. There it is. Do we need to go back just for to check real quickly with Stephanie or Crystal, just real quickly go down the answers to make sure. We can start with captains if you'd like to. Okay. So question two, we have sustained the answer key. That was a motion by Commissioner Baines and seconded by you, Commissioner Ramsey. Question five is sustain the answer key. It was motioned by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Baines. Question 60, sustain the answer key. Again, motion by Blanton and seconded by Baines. Question 65 was sustain the answer key. And I do have notes from both Commissioner Baines and Blanton about the wording of the question. So that was a sustain the answer key. And Commissioner Baines made the motion with Commissioner Blanton seconding the motion. Question 85 is accept both C as in cat and D as in dog. And that was made by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Commissioner Baines. Question 91, the appellant withdrew their appeal. Question 97, accept both A and B as in boy. That was a motion by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Ramsey. Is that correct? Yes. On the vote, Mr. Baines opposed. Yes, I do have that. I'm sorry, Mr. Baines opposed. Two to one. Okay. And then for driver appeals, we have question number 23 was sustain the answer key. And that was a motion by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Ramsey. Question 29, the appellant withdrew their appeal. Question 48, sustain the answer key. Motion by Commissioner Baines and seconded by Commissioner Blanton. Question 70, the first motion was to accept both A and C. That did not pass. It was a vote of one to two. The second motion was to sustain the answer key. That was motion by Commissioner Baines and seconded by Blanton. But I had some confusion on that. Was that Commissioner Blanton? Did you second that one? Yes, I made the original motion that I, based on discussion, changed my mind. Okay. All right. And that was a vote from two to one. Commissioner Ramsey opposed it. And then question 95, accept both A and D as in dog. Commissioner Baines made the motion. I think Commissioner Blanton, you made this second as well, correct? Yes, I think so. Okay. And that carried three to zero. All right. Thank you. That was just checking to make sure we got everything. Make sure our records are the same. Next item of business on the agenda is the date of the next Civil Service Commission meeting. So we have reserved the room for April 29th. As we've discussed before, we do have to reserve the room still. I'm not sure when Governor Abbott is going to allow us to meet in person again. So we're still going through the process of reserving the room and having DTV booked and everything. So we are scheduled for April 29th. Since Commissioner Prado Carrillo is not with us right now, if we wanted to look at moving that time up, we could possibly, we could not do that. I'm sorry. There are two, there's another meeting that day as well. So we're booked in the afternoon. Okay. Is that the 3.30 start time? Yes, it is. Is there any urgency? This is a question for Mike. Is there any urgency to the results of the testing? At this point, now that the decisions have been made, is there any urgency? Do we need this before the 29th? No, they can be put placed on the agenda for the 29th. Okay, that's fine because that's probably going to be the main item on the agenda. And if you need it sooner than that, then we could probably move it up because if that's the main item, then it will be dependent on you getting the scores redone because we're approving the eligibility lists. So, but that day works for the fire department. All right. If you don't need it, if there's no urgency there, we'll just go with our normal regularly scheduled times and go forth. So is there anything else for the good of the order? Stephanie? Thank you. Michael? Krista? No? If not, then we'll tell the motion that we adjourn at 6/22. Salute. In a second. Oh, okay. I was afraid I was going to die because it didn't have a second. I feel like you guys have definitely hazed me today, but it's fine. All in favor of adjournment, say aye. Aye. Aye. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you, Jamie. Thank you to our fire department. They do all the real work. We just talk a lot. Thank you, everyone.