WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:15.440
 All right. Good afternoon. It's called the Thursday, March 25th, 2021 session meeting

00:00:15.440 --> 00:00:26.760
 of the Civil Service Commission to Order at 3 31. Welcome to everyone. We have lots of

00:00:26.760 --> 00:00:33.000
 with some guests, but most of all we have the stars of the day, which are the appellants.

00:00:33.000 --> 00:00:40.800
 So plus, I think we probably need to take a second and welcome our newest commissioner

00:00:40.800 --> 00:00:48.480
 at this particular time, Jamie Blanton. Jamie, we're wonderfully happy to have you along

00:00:48.480 --> 00:00:57.640
 with us. It's a fun ride. You'll enjoy yourself. So happy to be here and happy to be serving

00:00:57.640 --> 00:01:03.680
 the city in this way. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. So, okay. She's not

00:01:03.680 --> 00:01:12.440
 really a guest, but since since we're introducing people, um, next order of business is receiving

00:01:12.440 --> 00:01:21.400
 public comments. I understand we have no public comments, so we'll move right on. Next order

00:01:21.400 --> 00:01:28.220
 of business is the approval of the minutes of the February 26th meeting, which is kind

00:01:28.220 --> 00:01:40.460
 of an interesting situation in that Mr. Baines wasn't here and Lillian is not here. So, um,

00:01:40.460 --> 00:01:46.440
 I looked at the minutes. They looked fine. So I would entertain a motion that we approve

00:01:46.440 --> 00:01:52.320
 the minutes, unless anyone, I first have to do that. So I'd entertain a motion that we

00:01:52.320 --> 00:02:02.640
 approve the minutes. I move that we approve the minutes. Second. I'm willing to second

00:02:02.640 --> 00:02:13.160
 that motion. This month's minutes. Now, are there any discussions? I wasn't there, so

00:02:13.160 --> 00:02:20.200
 I can't discuss. I looked it over. I did not see anything. I probably missed a date or

00:02:20.200 --> 00:02:28.800
 two like we did on the last one, but nothing, nothing substantive that I saw. So, um, all

00:02:28.800 --> 00:02:37.760
 in favor of approval of minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Next order of business is consider

00:02:37.760 --> 00:02:50.520
 and hold discussion, take action on the temporary vice chair. John keeps moving around on me.

00:02:50.520 --> 00:02:59.320
 He's trying to hide, I think. So, um, John, Jamie, would you like to do it? I mean, hopefully

00:02:59.320 --> 00:03:08.660
 I'll be happy to move that John Baines be named our vice chair. I'll second that motion.

00:03:08.660 --> 00:03:14.400
 Thank you. I did have a little discussion, Darryl. I guess I didn't realize is Lillian

00:03:14.400 --> 00:03:21.780
 not going to be with us anymore? Not for a while. Stephanie, do you want to? So for a

00:03:21.780 --> 00:03:28.200
 period of several months, I'll be standing in her place. Okay. So you're stuck with me

00:03:28.200 --> 00:03:35.280
 until she is able to return. Okay. All right. So at least we have some, some, what's that,

00:03:35.280 --> 00:03:43.360
 three in one oil. So if we're stuck, we can move a little bit. Is that okay? Exactly.

00:03:43.360 --> 00:03:50.680
 Jamie, are you old enough to know about three in one oil? Yes sir. Plus my husband owns

00:03:50.680 --> 00:03:56.360
 an automotive business, so I know lots of things that maybe I don't look like I should

00:03:56.360 --> 00:04:03.240
 know. Well, good deal. Good deal. And Jamie, you and I served together on the, on the police

00:04:03.240 --> 00:04:10.040
 commission. So I feel like that experience is what led me here. So I don't know if I

00:04:10.040 --> 00:04:18.820
 should feel sorry or happy, but here we are nonetheless. Regardless, my motion still stands.

00:04:18.820 --> 00:04:28.740
 So I would like to repeat my motion that commissioner Baines be selected as our temporary vice chair.

00:04:28.740 --> 00:04:36.600
 And I seconded it. So if there's no further discussion, I'll say aye. Aye. Aye. There

00:04:36.600 --> 00:04:44.440
 is no. Next is the certification to consider and take action on the certification list

00:04:44.440 --> 00:04:58.160
 for a police lieutenant. You received that list in your agenda. I would, I would entertain

00:04:58.160 --> 00:05:14.480
 a motion that we approve the, that we approve that list. Mr. Chairman, I do have a request

00:05:14.480 --> 00:05:22.520
 please. Yes, sir. I don't, I, I lost my computer with everything on it. So I'm at someone else's

00:05:22.520 --> 00:05:31.560
 computer. Is it possible to, to have the, the screen share put in place so I could take

00:05:31.560 --> 00:05:37.920
 a look at the document? I'm happy to pull it up here if I have the capability to do

00:05:37.920 --> 00:05:44.520
 so. Crystal's probably. I'll get with DTV real quick. I have to make me a host. Hang

00:05:44.520 --> 00:05:57.520
 on just a second. Yes. I have to work with DTV on it. Okay. Who's on for police? Where's

00:05:57.520 --> 00:06:03.160
 the, where's the police representative? There he is. Michael. Yes, sir. You're not driving,

00:06:03.160 --> 00:06:11.880
 are you? I'm at the range, but I am sitting in the, in the car. Oh, okay. I'll let you

00:06:11.880 --> 00:06:18.560
 kind of talk us through this one. When, hopefully when Crystal gets that information up. I mean,

00:06:18.560 --> 00:06:42.420
 I have a question. So it looks, it looks very strange.

00:06:42.420 --> 00:06:47.420
 So I get my new sound card tomorrow for my computer. But in the meantime, I'm in a different

00:06:47.420 --> 00:06:52.120
 room in a different part of the office. So please forgive me for being a little bit ill

00:06:52.120 --> 00:06:58.820
 prepared here. I have perhaps what I hope would be an introductory question. Would that

00:06:58.820 --> 00:07:04.120
 be okay? Or I, this is my first meeting. So you guys will have to tell me if there's a

00:07:04.120 --> 00:07:11.680
 Robert's rules of order or something I need to follow about my questions. I think we can

00:07:11.680 --> 00:07:19.200
 probably go ahead and table this, this part of them and for just for a second, Jamie let

00:07:19.200 --> 00:07:26.640
 you ask your question. So go ahead, even though my question is, um, what is the maximum possible

00:07:26.640 --> 00:07:38.240
 score for this particular exam and certification? Michael, would you want to handle your, uh,

00:07:38.240 --> 00:07:45.920
 yes sir. 210, um, a hundred points for the written exam, 55 for the research project

00:07:45.920 --> 00:07:55.900
 and 55 for the oral presentation of that research project. So 110 from the research project

00:07:55.900 --> 00:08:02.080
 and a hundred from the written test. Okay. So if I'm reading this report correctly,

00:08:02.080 --> 00:08:08.640
 just so that I make sure that I'm following along under the exam point score, that's eight,

00:08:08.640 --> 00:08:14.200
 these scores are out of a hundred and then out of the project scores, those are out of

00:08:14.200 --> 00:08:27.120
 110. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you so much. Any other questions?

00:08:27.120 --> 00:08:34.840
 Yes, I did. I did have a question as well, uh, uh, Mr. Chair. So I do know that in the

00:08:34.840 --> 00:08:44.120
 past they've indicated that on the lieutenants, the, uh, captains and, and the higher ups

00:08:44.120 --> 00:08:52.200
 that you have a little more cognitive thinking rather than just test taking, there's some

00:08:52.200 --> 00:08:56.960
 other things they look at. And so that's the project. Is it not where they're asking

00:08:56.960 --> 00:09:04.560
 for a little more to kind of demonstrate your skillset, uh, beyond simply test taking? Is

00:09:04.560 --> 00:09:11.160
 that correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. All right. That's, I just wanted to make sure.

00:09:11.160 --> 00:09:21.780
 Thank you. And what is the minimum total score to be able to be certified? They have to have

00:09:21.780 --> 00:09:36.600
 passed the written exam with a 70 to go on and do the research project. Those are all

00:09:36.600 --> 00:09:45.960
 my questions, Mr. Chair. I would, I would entertain a motion that we accept, um, approve.

00:09:45.960 --> 00:09:55.640
 I'm sorry. The lieutenant certification. I'll second. Now, is there any other discussion?

00:09:55.640 --> 00:10:01.960
 Got it. The cart before the horse, but that's okay. Any discussion? I think I've discussed

00:10:01.960 --> 00:10:10.240
 already. All right. All in favor of approval of the police lieutenant certification list,

00:10:10.240 --> 00:10:20.640
 say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Certification list is approved. Next to order

00:10:20.640 --> 00:10:42.600
 of business is the fire battalion chief. Um, what is this? An eligibility list. So crystal,

00:10:42.600 --> 00:11:11.600
 can you get that one up for us? Yes. Who's representing fire today? Dr. Ramsey.

00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:20.880
 Oh, there you are. You got lost in the screen share. So there you go. Thanks, Mike. Yes,

00:11:20.880 --> 00:11:29.280
 sir. Talk to us a little bit. Tell us about it. Sir. So this is typically, um, if someone

00:11:29.280 --> 00:11:34.880
 doesn't show up or doesn't take the test, then we don't leave them on there. Um, but

00:11:34.880 --> 00:11:39.520
 we wanted to leave them there. There were three candidates that, um, submitted their

00:11:39.520 --> 00:11:45.080
 intent to take the test. Only one of those showed up and took the test. Megan, she, um,

00:11:45.080 --> 00:11:51.400
 she did pass. So her score is listed there. The other two, uh, were the, the members that

00:11:51.400 --> 00:11:57.160
 filled out intent forms, but they did not show up for the test. Okay. That explains

00:11:57.160 --> 00:12:06.060
 the zeros. Yes, sir. We just wanted to, um, make sure you know that we satisfy the, uh,

00:12:06.060 --> 00:12:11.240
 communications rules that says you have to, there must be a minimum of two completed notices

00:12:11.240 --> 00:12:22.680
 of intent forms for a promotional examination to be administered. Okay. I apologize. Hang

00:12:22.680 --> 00:12:30.280
 on. I would entertain a motion that we, uh, approve the battalion fire battalion chief

00:12:30.280 --> 00:12:45.180
 eligibility list. So moved. I'll second. Now we have questions. I just have a point of

00:12:45.180 --> 00:12:50.920
 clarification that, uh, even though the other two individuals are listed here on the document,

00:12:50.920 --> 00:12:56.520
 only the one that completed the examination is actually being promoted. Is that correct?

00:12:56.520 --> 00:13:03.160
 Well, it's, um, an eligibility list. So we currently have no battalion chief vacancies.

00:13:03.160 --> 00:13:09.880
 So, um, we, according to civil service, we must maintain eligibility list for all ranks.

00:13:09.880 --> 00:13:16.360
 So she will remain on the eligibility list until the vacancy, if and when a vacancy occurs

00:13:16.360 --> 00:13:21.840
 and then she would be promoted. But yes, she, she, she'll be the only one that remains on

00:13:21.840 --> 00:13:31.360
 the eligibility list. Mike, when, when are the plans to, uh, administer another test?

00:13:31.360 --> 00:13:41.800
 Our professional exams are as our entrance exams are given once a year, every month.

00:13:41.800 --> 00:13:46.560
 That's a, that's a, I realize it's a, it's a small number of people, but that's a small

00:13:46.560 --> 00:14:00.840
 list too. Yes, sir. So, uh, uh, officer Holesclaw, um, what's the game plan for, uh, expanding

00:14:00.840 --> 00:14:06.640
 the department? Where, where are we in that in our plan and, and what are we looking at

00:14:06.640 --> 00:14:15.800
 as far as a timetable? Considering battalion chief promotions? Well, just in general, you

00:14:15.800 --> 00:14:22.840
 know, are we looking to, to, what's, what's kind of our growth plan? Do we kind of have

00:14:22.840 --> 00:14:28.600
 an idea that we will be probably eligible for another battalion commander with no retirements

00:14:28.600 --> 00:14:33.880
 within the next five years or would it be sooner than that? It's not expected. Um, Chief

00:14:33.880 --> 00:14:42.080
 Hedges is online. If I may allow him to expand on that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. This

00:14:42.080 --> 00:14:46.280
 is Chief Hedges. Yes. Well, last year we actually promoted three battalion chiefs. So that's

00:14:46.280 --> 00:14:51.520
 actually the most battalion chief we've ever promoted since 1996. So we actually enacted

00:14:51.520 --> 00:14:57.360
 a second battalion. So we don't foresee any future battalion chief creation on positions.

00:14:57.360 --> 00:15:01.720
 It will only be based on retirements. And one thing I want to comment is our department

00:15:01.720 --> 00:15:06.240
 over the past five to eight years, we've really transitioned to a younger department. So we've

00:15:06.240 --> 00:15:09.920
 had this internal discussions. It's like, how do we promote people to take a battalion

00:15:09.920 --> 00:15:13.440
 chief test? We've really got two different groups of people right now. We have captains

00:15:13.440 --> 00:15:18.640
 that are old school that have eight plus years as a captain rank. And then we have another

00:15:18.640 --> 00:15:24.080
 group that's like captains that have four to five years and they're wanting more experience

00:15:24.080 --> 00:15:28.240
 in their captain's role. And the older captains are kind of, well, I'm tenured. I don't really

00:15:28.240 --> 00:15:33.160
 want to change my work description, possibly my work schedule, start all over from scratch

00:15:33.160 --> 00:15:37.280
 and start a new job. So we kind of have this middle area, this career right now that we're

00:15:37.280 --> 00:15:43.080
 trying to figure out how can we get more people interested in taking the test. So as far as

00:15:43.080 --> 00:15:47.880
 future plans the next five years, I don't foresee us adding another battalion chief

00:15:47.880 --> 00:15:52.240
 as a new FTE in that timeframe. It'll just be based on retirements.

00:15:52.240 --> 00:15:55.200
 Currently, how many battalion chiefs do we have?

00:15:55.200 --> 00:16:04.400
 Currently, we have six in operations. Then we have five in administration.

00:16:04.400 --> 00:16:10.280
 Thank you very much. Based on the challenges that you just described

00:16:10.280 --> 00:16:15.080
 would help me to understand why you have some individuals listed here that might have opted

00:16:15.080 --> 00:16:20.920
 not to take the exam if they knew sort of that there aren't going to be vacancies and

00:16:20.920 --> 00:16:26.080
 some of the other challenges that you described. So what is the plan or what resources would

00:16:26.080 --> 00:16:34.400
 be needed to help kind of continue to motivate folks within the department to pursue promotion

00:16:34.400 --> 00:16:39.280
 and growth within our own department rather than transfer or get jobs in other departments

00:16:39.280 --> 00:16:42.800
 elsewhere in our community? Well, you know, we don't really have an issue

00:16:42.800 --> 00:16:47.560
 on personal retention. I mean, that's a good thing. They stay here at a full 25, 30, 40

00:16:47.560 --> 00:16:51.080
 years, honestly. It's just how we get them to move up from rank to rank. And one thing

00:16:51.080 --> 00:16:55.080
 we're actually starting is professional development and succession planning. So we're actually

00:16:55.080 --> 00:16:59.320
 taking captains. COVID has really been the key to this, and we're actually bringing them

00:16:59.320 --> 00:17:04.080
 in and shadowing battalion chiefs so they see actually what the job is. So they understand

00:17:04.080 --> 00:17:08.200
 aspects of the job. It's not just, you know, hidden agenda. What does that person actually

00:17:08.200 --> 00:17:12.880
 do? You know, there's always a disconnect between operations and administration over

00:17:12.880 --> 00:17:17.480
 what roles each play as well. So if we bring captains alongside battalion chiefs for like,

00:17:17.480 --> 00:17:21.760
 you know, a week and they see the meetings they have to do and the new requirements as

00:17:21.760 --> 00:17:26.840
 far as managing programs and resources to support operations, it kind of brings that

00:17:26.840 --> 00:17:30.720
 awareness. And, you know, really, honestly, we've put a lot of thought into this is just,

00:17:30.720 --> 00:17:36.080
 I don't know how at this point we get people to show up and take the test. It's just people

00:17:36.080 --> 00:17:39.000
 are comfortable in their job, which that's actually to me, that's a positive thing. You

00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:42.720
 know, if they're comfortable where they're at, that means something's going good. Some

00:17:42.720 --> 00:17:46.720
 people just, they don't have aspirations to move further up in the department. And I was

00:17:46.720 --> 00:17:52.840
 actually looking at our pay scale and it's adjusted annually by a new conferred agreement.

00:17:52.840 --> 00:17:58.240
 But the difference between a captain and a battalion chief pay is only 16 to 18,000 from

00:17:58.240 --> 00:18:03.560
 minimum to maximum. So some people can still work that shift schedule as a captain, work

00:18:03.560 --> 00:18:09.520
 24 on, 48 off, they can still work as side job. So they could potentially make more money

00:18:09.520 --> 00:18:12.680
 remaining a captain as well. So there's a lot of different hurdles we're going to have

00:18:12.680 --> 00:18:19.040
 to look at and come up with maybe creative solutions.

00:18:19.040 --> 00:18:24.920
 And this is not a new problem. Or it's not a new phenomenon was there may be a problem

00:18:24.920 --> 00:18:31.200
 now, but it's not a new phenomenon. It's been it's been going on for 20 years or more.

00:18:31.200 --> 00:18:35.240
 So yes, sir, you're correct. People know whenever we're gonna have promotions, and you'll have

00:18:35.240 --> 00:18:39.240
 more people take the test. I think last year we had five people take the VCs test and out

00:18:39.240 --> 00:18:43.640
 of those five we promoted. So we just exhausted most of those people they were wanting to

00:18:43.640 --> 00:18:47.680
 promote at that time. So yes, it's a very common thing that's been around for years

00:18:47.680 --> 00:18:53.120
 and you know, I just don't have a easy fix at this point, it's gonna be a multi multifaceted

00:18:53.120 --> 00:18:58.040
 solution we can't come up with one.

00:18:58.040 --> 00:19:07.960
 Alright, any other questions? Motion to approve is on the floor. So all in favor of approval

00:19:07.960 --> 00:19:19.480
 of the battalion chief eligibility list say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. No opposition. Motion carries.

00:19:19.480 --> 00:19:25.280
 Okay, now we're ready for the for the big show.

00:19:25.280 --> 00:19:37.440
 Well, hanging around and staying with us. So first, we'll do the first and the next

00:19:37.440 --> 00:19:43.720
 order of business is the captain's appeal. So we'll do the captain's appeals will remind

00:19:43.720 --> 00:19:52.800
 you the procedure of the appellants will have an opportunity to present their appeal to

00:19:52.800 --> 00:20:02.720
 us. Remember, appellants that we have seen the your written appeals without your name

00:20:02.720 --> 00:20:10.480
 on them, and had a chance to kind of look at the materials, we have the materials with

00:20:10.480 --> 00:20:20.600
 us. So in your presentation, be relatively brief. In the situations where there are multiple

00:20:20.600 --> 00:20:30.240
 appellants. The second third appellants, I would ask you to not reiterate as so much

00:20:30.240 --> 00:20:39.220
 the things that have already been said. But if you have new information to add to the

00:20:39.220 --> 00:20:47.520
 to the mix, I welcome that we I we welcome that. So I don't want anyone to feel as though

00:20:47.520 --> 00:20:53.140
 they didn't get their appeal heard. But we don't need to hear the same the same story

00:20:53.140 --> 00:21:00.800
 three times we what we want to hear is a complete picture from two or three of you at a time.

00:21:00.800 --> 00:21:05.880
 After the appeal, there'll be a chance for after the appellant presents appellant or

00:21:05.880 --> 00:21:15.040
 appellants present their case. We will there will be a time for the commission to ask questions

00:21:15.040 --> 00:21:23.280
 of the appellant. At that point, we'll at the end of that, we'll go forward with the

00:21:23.280 --> 00:21:29.600
 fire response, which again, we've all seen. I assume that the appellants have also seen

00:21:29.600 --> 00:21:40.720
 those responses now. Is that true? Michael, if they found them on the agenda. Okay, all

00:21:40.720 --> 00:21:48.920
 right. And then after after a fire gets their opportunity, be questions and then the then

00:21:48.920 --> 00:21:55.560
 if I'm lucky and somebody reminds me, we'll ask if there is anyone who would like to speak

00:21:55.560 --> 00:22:05.520
 in opposition to the appeal. And then commission, we will move forward with motions and discussion

00:22:05.520 --> 00:22:14.600
 and finally make a decision on on each appeal. So that's the procedure. Again, we'd like

00:22:14.600 --> 00:22:23.000
 to keep it as brief as possible. But those of you that have done this before know that

00:22:23.000 --> 00:22:30.520
 I I personally want to make sure that you walk walk out of the room at least sign off

00:22:30.520 --> 00:22:36.440
 on zoom feeling like you got a chance to say what you needed to say for the commission

00:22:36.440 --> 00:22:42.120
 to consider. But again, if we can keep it brief, unless we're going to send send out

00:22:42.120 --> 00:22:50.200
 for breakfast in the morning, we can maybe move move forward. So being said, did I leave

00:22:50.200 --> 00:22:58.260
 anything out Stephanie? No, you covered everything. Okay. Maybe you can be the one to remind me

00:22:58.260 --> 00:23:08.920
 that I'm supposed to ask for the opposition. I always forget that part. First appeal and

00:23:08.920 --> 00:23:18.520
 captain's appeals is item number two. Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Can you guys hear me? Yes,

00:23:18.520 --> 00:23:22.560
 sir. Okay. First off, I want to thank you guys for being here today and taking the time

00:23:22.560 --> 00:23:26.000
 to go over the stuff with us. I know that's a big commitment on your part, but I appreciate

00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:32.280
 that as well from y'all. They did. You guys do have a copy of my appeal. You've seen what

00:23:32.280 --> 00:23:37.920
 I have written. And the reason that I have killed this question is because the question

00:23:37.920 --> 00:23:44.760
 on the test leaves out one important descriptor that was listed in the book that separates

00:23:44.760 --> 00:23:50.920
 a smoke explosion from a flash over. So smoke explosion is the key to answer on the test,

00:23:50.920 --> 00:23:59.000
 which is B. And I selected a flash over as the answer on my test. Um, like I wrote in

00:23:59.000 --> 00:24:06.860
 my appeal, the key term is under smoke explosion. It states that smoke that is being trapped

00:24:06.860 --> 00:24:13.000
 in a separate space and that separate space is the key thing here above the fire. It also

00:24:13.000 --> 00:24:19.240
 has in the section on page 85 right above that table that smoke explosions typically

00:24:19.240 --> 00:24:25.600
 occur in a trapped smoke area away from the fire. So all three of the things that it lists

00:24:25.600 --> 00:24:32.120
 in the question on the test can happen in a flash over as well without it being in a

00:24:32.120 --> 00:24:38.400
 separate room. So if you put separate in there, it definitely delineates between smoke explosion

00:24:38.400 --> 00:24:43.440
 and flash over. But if you leave that away or separate from all three of the things on

00:24:43.440 --> 00:24:48.040
 the test and the question can be construed to make you think flash over is an appropriate

00:24:48.040 --> 00:25:00.600
 answer as well. All right. Thank you Mr. Johnson. Questions of the appellant. Mr. Chair, my

00:25:00.600 --> 00:25:04.320
 books are in the next room. Excuse me for a minute. I'm going to get the books back.

00:25:04.320 --> 00:25:27.200
 I have the, I have my excerpts, but I don't have the books. So, I'll be back in a second.

00:25:27.200 --> 00:25:56.040
 I'll be back in a second.

00:25:56.040 --> 00:26:00.960
 Excuse me, Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Give me your page reference again, please. It is page

00:26:00.960 --> 00:26:08.600
 85. Some of the information is found in table 6-2 at the bottom and then also under that

00:26:08.600 --> 00:26:21.040
 heading of smoke explosion right above that same table. Okay. So when I looked at your,

00:26:21.040 --> 00:26:29.560
 at the question. Yes, sir. Let's, let's look at the components of the question. It says

00:26:29.560 --> 00:26:35.480
 while evaluating the conditions, you observe that, excuse me, you observe smoke that is

00:26:35.480 --> 00:26:44.440
 trapped above the fire. Yes, sir. Signs of growing fire. Signs of smoke starting to pressurize.

00:26:44.440 --> 00:26:52.560
 So when you go to the table, those three are specifically listed as associated with smoke

00:26:52.560 --> 00:26:58.160
 explosion. That's true. I do concede that. And I understand that. Okay. So explain to

00:26:58.160 --> 00:27:03.920
 me how then, you know, there's always a good answer and there's the best answer. So, right.

00:27:03.920 --> 00:27:10.920
 I understand. To your answer as the best answer. Okay. So also, if you look under flash over

00:27:10.920 --> 00:27:17.760
 in that same table on the first one, it says turbulent smoke that has filled a compartment.

00:27:17.760 --> 00:27:23.160
 So obviously if it fills a compartment, it's above the fire as well. So that takes it.

00:27:23.160 --> 00:27:31.760
 I see. If you go to signs of a growing fire, it says rapid change in smoke volume and velocity.

00:27:31.760 --> 00:27:35.800
 The only way that you get rapid changes in smoke volume and velocity is with a fire that

00:27:35.800 --> 00:27:40.440
 is growing and starting to get larger and produce more turbulent smoke. Okay. So that

00:27:40.440 --> 00:27:45.560
 takes care of number two as well. And then number three, the smoke starting to pressurize

00:27:45.560 --> 00:27:49.840
 also falls under that first one that I said, and the one that I just listed, the turbulent

00:27:49.840 --> 00:27:55.000
 smoke flow that has filled a compartment and the rapid change in smoke volume and velocity.

00:27:55.000 --> 00:28:02.480
 So all three of those can be seen in the flash over definition as well. Is it word for word?

00:28:02.480 --> 00:28:07.580
 Not as much as smoke explosion, but it's still, you can gather all three of those things from

00:28:07.580 --> 00:28:13.200
 a flash over as well from that table. And the one key descriptor that separates smoke

00:28:13.200 --> 00:28:17.960
 explosion from a flash over is that it's in a separate space away from the original fire

00:28:17.960 --> 00:28:24.760
 or compartment that the fire is growing in. And that's listed in the paragraph above at

00:28:24.760 --> 00:28:30.200
 the bottom of the smoke explosion section, where it says smoke explosions typically occur

00:28:30.200 --> 00:28:35.920
 in a trapped smoke area away from the fire, such as a dead end hallway, the top of a stairwell

00:28:35.920 --> 00:28:43.760
 or an uninvolved room above the fire or void space. It also lists that in the section down

00:28:43.760 --> 00:28:53.440
 in that table, the smoke explosion, where it says, let me find it. That is smoke that

00:28:53.440 --> 00:28:57.760
 is being trapped in a separate space above the fire. So that separate space and the away

00:28:57.760 --> 00:29:02.760
 from are the two things that I feel left out can lead someone to believe that flash over

00:29:02.760 --> 00:29:08.680
 is an appropriate answer as well. I will say, Mr. Johnson, rather than being

00:29:08.680 --> 00:29:14.260
 specific, yours was interpretive. Yes, sir, it was. It was more just knowing

00:29:14.260 --> 00:29:18.480
 what fire is and the different components of it and how it acts and putting all those

00:29:18.480 --> 00:29:22.960
 things together. Is it word from word, word for word from the book for smoke explosion?

00:29:22.960 --> 00:29:27.680
 It is in that table. However, I've done this long enough and been around long enough that

00:29:27.680 --> 00:29:32.980
 I know that, you know, sometimes interpretive data is allowed to be taken as well.

00:29:32.980 --> 00:29:43.200
 So point well taken. Thank you. Thank you. My question is that you made the comment that

00:29:43.200 --> 00:30:00.060
 buildup of smoke is a sign of a growing fire. Wouldn't a continuous steady stream of smoke

00:30:00.060 --> 00:30:08.080
 continue to have the same buildup? Would it not necessarily be an explosion of the fire

00:30:08.080 --> 00:30:13.920
 or smoke is smoke is going to be present from any fire? It's the turbulence or velocity

00:30:13.920 --> 00:30:18.280
 with which that smoke is pressurizing that separate separates a growing fire from one

00:30:18.280 --> 00:30:25.120
 that may be just smoldering and the turbulent smoke flow under flash over and the rapid

00:30:25.120 --> 00:30:30.640
 change in smoke volume and velocity leads you to know that that fire is growing because

00:30:30.640 --> 00:30:37.600
 yes, all fires, even ones that are in the in stages will have some smoke production,

00:30:37.600 --> 00:30:44.240
 but it's the turbulent and the change in volume and velocity that signify a growing fire.

00:30:44.240 --> 00:30:52.280
 Any other questions for the appellant? I do not have my one question is about the above

00:30:52.280 --> 00:30:59.200
 the fire. So when I was reading the your response and also sort of this section that talks about

00:30:59.200 --> 00:31:06.000
 this specific piece, when I read it, and again, you're the expert, not me, but when I read

00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:13.240
 it the being the above the fire was only described for smoke explosion. But when you were speaking

00:31:13.240 --> 00:31:18.800
 with us just now, you said that it's also part of a flash over as well. So could you

00:31:18.800 --> 00:31:22.960
 help me understand that with a little bit more clarity because that's not what I read

00:31:22.960 --> 00:31:27.600
 in the book. Are you referencing table six to under the smoke explosion? Is that where

00:31:27.600 --> 00:31:34.440
 you're referencing? Yeah, for the above being above the fire specifically. Yes, ma'am. Well,

00:31:34.440 --> 00:31:38.320
 I guess I'm not real sure exactly what your question is, but I can try to answer it as

00:31:38.320 --> 00:31:43.440
 good as I can. So obviously, any room where a fire is growing, there's an area above the

00:31:43.440 --> 00:31:49.600
 fire above the fire, but below the ceiling. So you do have an area above the fire, obviously,

00:31:49.600 --> 00:31:54.940
 even in one compartment. But it's the separate space that it talks about under smoke explosion,

00:31:54.940 --> 00:31:59.440
 the separate space. And what you read from the paragraph above talks about two different

00:31:59.440 --> 00:32:05.280
 areas, not necessarily the same room. But it says such as a dead end hallway, top of

00:32:05.280 --> 00:32:12.160
 the stairwell, or an uninvolved room above the fire. So there's that same area above

00:32:12.160 --> 00:32:16.800
 a fire, even in one compartment or one room. But then the smoke explosion definition of

00:32:16.800 --> 00:32:23.440
 the book talks about separate spaces completely. So the primary crux of your argument then

00:32:23.440 --> 00:32:29.640
 is that this particular question does not reference the separate space. That's what

00:32:29.640 --> 00:32:34.760
 my appeal was yesterday. That was my appeal, that it left out the away from or separate

00:32:34.760 --> 00:32:42.760
 from was my appeal basically to the question. Okay, but you would agree based on the question

00:32:42.760 --> 00:32:51.400
 that a smoke explosion is smoke being trapped above the fire, has signs of a growing fire,

00:32:51.400 --> 00:32:55.340
 and has signs that the smoke is starting to pressurize. So the three elements that are

00:32:55.340 --> 00:33:02.840
 listed in the question, you agree that those are true of a smoke explosion, right?

00:33:02.840 --> 00:33:08.520
 Yes, ma'am. I agree completely. I mentioned that. I'm not sure if you heard, but did mention

00:33:08.520 --> 00:33:13.960
 that I agree with the question stating under the smoke explosion in the book, that table,

00:33:13.960 --> 00:33:19.100
 it meets all three of those criteria. However, it also meets flat without that away from

00:33:19.100 --> 00:33:27.320
 it. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, kind of continuing on that. Are you referencing that paragraph

00:33:27.320 --> 00:33:37.000
 above the table on 85? Yes, sir. It's that one that says smoke explosion. Okay. So even

00:33:37.000 --> 00:33:44.400
 though it says smoke explosion, you're kind of attributing it to the flash over. Well,

00:33:44.400 --> 00:33:48.840
 what I'm saying is that under the definition of smoke explosion, it says that that occurs

00:33:48.840 --> 00:33:53.600
 in an area generally away from the fire, which separates smoke explosion from other events

00:33:53.600 --> 00:34:00.600
 such as a flash over. And that without that away from as designated in the smoke explosion

00:34:00.600 --> 00:34:07.720
 section, it could be construed as flash over as well. Okay. All right. Hopefully, however,

00:34:07.720 --> 00:34:16.880
 that language is under the description of smoke explosion. Yes, sir. It is. I can't

00:34:16.880 --> 00:34:24.520
 deny that. Okay. And then when we go to the next page, we go to flash over. And as I've

00:34:24.520 --> 00:34:28.960
 told others, I'm a CPA, I'm an accountant, I don't do fire for a living, but I'm trying

00:34:28.960 --> 00:34:35.080
 to interpret and I'm trying to be sensitive. At the same time, if you go to the next page

00:34:35.080 --> 00:34:48.560
 on 86, under flash over, I don't think there's as much interpretation there. Well, if you're

00:34:48.560 --> 00:34:53.040
 talking about interpretation as far as what the table lists on 62, what the paragraph

00:34:53.040 --> 00:34:58.440
 on fire or a flash over states and what the table lists are different things. Yes, sir.

00:34:58.440 --> 00:35:02.200
 It doesn't have the same information in that paragraph on flash over as it has in the table

00:35:02.200 --> 00:35:07.920
 under flash over that correlates the two activities, if that's what you're asking. Yes, sir. Okay.

00:35:07.920 --> 00:35:20.840
 All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ramsey. Fire response. Yes, sir. The department's

00:35:20.840 --> 00:35:26.960
 recommendation is to sustain the key. Well, the appellant is accurate in the fact that

00:35:26.960 --> 00:35:32.680
 the question does not contain in a separate space as quoted in the book. The remainder

00:35:32.680 --> 00:35:39.640
 of the question is word for word. The question does contain above the fire. And if you understand

00:35:39.640 --> 00:35:44.880
 the warning signs for a smoke explosion and those for a flash over as stated in the book,

00:35:44.880 --> 00:35:51.760
 then answer B is clearly the one best answer. I will try to clear up some of the discussion

00:35:51.760 --> 00:36:00.000
 that y'all have had regarding smoke that's being trapped, which is a sign of smoke explosion.

00:36:00.000 --> 00:36:07.600
 That smoke that has to be trapped in an area of space, wherever it may be, that's below

00:36:07.600 --> 00:36:15.160
 its ignition point. So it's not going to auto ignite without help from fire, a spark or

00:36:15.160 --> 00:36:22.720
 something being introduced into that space. The turbulent smoke from a flash over, if

00:36:22.720 --> 00:36:31.260
 you want to see that, flip the page to page 87 and look at figure 6.5. That's turbulent

00:36:31.260 --> 00:36:39.960
 smoke coming from what obviously that room or that entire structure is full of smoke,

00:36:39.960 --> 00:36:50.280
 but that is turbulent smoke. And that's what a building looks like that is nearing flash

00:36:50.280 --> 00:37:05.440
 over. Hopefully that helps. >> Okay. Any other questions for fire? Hearing

00:37:05.440 --> 00:37:19.120
 none. Does anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Hearing none, I would entertain

00:37:19.120 --> 00:37:35.560
 a motion from the commission. >> My motion is to sustain the key, Mr. Chair.

00:37:35.560 --> 00:37:38.960
 >> Is there a second? I'll second it just for discussion sake.

00:37:38.960 --> 00:37:49.040
 >> Thank you. >> Now, any discussion? Hearing none, all in

00:37:49.040 --> 00:37:56.400
 favor, are we ready to vote? All in favor of sustaining the key for number two, say aye.

00:37:56.400 --> 00:38:18.120
 >> Aye. >> Opposed? Number two, we sustain the key. All right. Next is question number

00:38:18.120 --> 00:38:27.280
 five. And Mr. Galbraith, where are you? There you are.

00:38:27.280 --> 00:38:37.160
 >> I'm trying to get my speaker working, Mr. Ramsey. Stand by.

00:38:37.160 --> 00:38:42.960
 >> The story of my day, I'm with you, I understand. >> I got it. We're all working now.

00:38:42.960 --> 00:38:51.960
 >> All right. Let's see now. That's incident safety.

00:38:51.960 --> 00:39:03.360
 >> Yes, sir. >> Where is incident safety? Okay.

00:39:03.360 --> 00:39:13.960
 >> You ready? >> Do your thing. Yes, sir.

00:39:13.960 --> 00:39:20.040
 >> Well, within the question, the question is stated, it's talking about risk benefit

00:39:20.040 --> 00:39:24.800
 evaluations are paramount when forming ISO functions at the high angle incident risk,

00:39:24.800 --> 00:39:33.080
 at the high angle incident. The key question that they wanted is going to be risk benefit

00:39:33.080 --> 00:39:39.880
 evaluations. I think that there's definitely two answers to this question, just due to

00:39:39.880 --> 00:39:47.760
 the technicalities. If you read in this specific chapter alone that the first five or so pages,

00:39:47.760 --> 00:39:54.400
 if you look to the first page, it starts on 217. If you go down to the -- on that page

00:39:54.400 --> 00:39:58.920
 down towards the bottom, just in the little writing, it's discussing the application of

00:39:58.920 --> 00:40:05.440
 special knowledge, skills, and equipment to safety, resolve unique and complex rescue

00:40:05.440 --> 00:40:13.000
 -- to safety resolve unique and/or complex rescue situations. Then it goes on to talk

00:40:13.000 --> 00:40:18.160
 about complex incidents requiring specialized trained personnel and equipment to complete

00:40:18.160 --> 00:40:26.720
 the mission. So what the ambiguity of this question is, it's -- to ask this question

00:40:26.720 --> 00:40:35.880
 and just have risk benefit as the key component of the incident safety officer function in

00:40:35.880 --> 00:40:44.160
 a technical rescue situation, such as rope rescue, you have to have education and experience

00:40:44.160 --> 00:40:53.320
 to perform the function. So if you go to 218, page 218, middle of the page, when the ISO

00:40:53.320 --> 00:40:59.800
 safety officer does not have the technician-level training and/or certification, then you must

00:40:59.800 --> 00:41:08.520
 have what they call an ASORT, which is an assistant safety officer, rescue tech. That's

00:41:08.520 --> 00:41:15.160
 what that RT stands for, which is more training and experience. You have to have them there

00:41:15.160 --> 00:41:24.760
 now, along with the ISO, to perform the stated question, which is high-angle rescue. And

00:41:24.760 --> 00:41:32.600
 then 221, in the middle of that, table 15-1, if you go down, that's a sample of technical

00:41:32.600 --> 00:41:38.520
 rescue categories and associated documents. Basically, what this is just telling you is

00:41:38.520 --> 00:41:46.280
 pretty much reiterating, again, the need to have technical specialization, education and

00:41:46.280 --> 00:41:52.680
 experience to perform the function. So with that being said, I think that definitely risk

00:41:52.680 --> 00:42:01.080
 benefit has to be, you know, a component of performing incident safety officer functions

00:42:01.080 --> 00:42:09.560
 within a high-angle rescue. But also, more importantly, according to how this book is

00:42:09.560 --> 00:42:14.520
 and reading the book and studying the book and answering this question, you also have

00:42:14.520 --> 00:42:26.840
 to have somebody who is educated and experienced to even get to risk benefit. Period.

00:42:26.840 --> 00:42:48.840
 Questions of the appellant? My question would be, who ultimately makes a decision? The assistant

00:42:48.840 --> 00:42:58.200
 safety officer or the safety officer? Makes a decision for what, sir? Whatever the situation

00:42:58.200 --> 00:43:09.160
 is, as far as ISO functions, a high-angle incident. It would be the incident... I'm sorry,

00:43:09.160 --> 00:43:17.080
 you cut out. No, I was just adding the rest of the question to it. I got you. Well, it's

00:43:17.080 --> 00:43:21.800
 specifically within the question talking about the incident safety officer who is going to be

00:43:21.800 --> 00:43:29.720
 pretty much the overseer of a high-angle incident. But he needs to have, make sure that there is

00:43:29.720 --> 00:43:37.800
 education and experience there to perform the task. So that has to be in place before you even,

00:43:37.800 --> 00:43:42.440
 you can't just have somebody who's, well, you know, I think I can do this. You have to have

00:43:42.440 --> 00:43:49.640
 somebody who is educated and who has experience to perform the function of a high-angle rescue.

00:43:49.640 --> 00:43:57.640
 But to answer your question, it's the incident safety officer who has to have, he's the authority

00:43:57.640 --> 00:44:05.960
 of making sure that that is done safely. And he has the right people in position to perform it

00:44:05.960 --> 00:44:17.960
 effectively and of course, safely. Okay. That being said, what is the paramount function of the ISO

00:44:17.960 --> 00:44:23.160
 in that situation? Getting the right people and then the...

00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:36.680
 I feel, am I getting another question? Yep.

00:44:36.680 --> 00:44:48.520
 Ultimately, the ISO has to make the decision. They get all the input. What is the criteria that they

00:44:48.520 --> 00:44:58.040
 use that's paramount for all functions at the high-angle incident? What does the ISO have to

00:44:58.040 --> 00:45:06.840
 consider primarily, paramount? Well, I mean, it has to be risk benefit along with what he has,

00:45:06.840 --> 00:45:15.080
 what is needed to perform the function in my mind. Okay. I'm done.

00:45:15.080 --> 00:45:23.400
 So I have a question along the same line. My question is, let's assume that everyone involved,

00:45:24.760 --> 00:45:31.080
 that you're working the incident with, has the same or similar education and training.

00:45:31.080 --> 00:45:41.880
 If that was true, how is the ISO functioning differently than the other members of the team?

00:45:47.400 --> 00:45:56.760
 It's just difficult to hear you. I'm sorry. So you're asking me what is different in this situation?

00:45:56.760 --> 00:46:05.160
 So in a high-angle incident, if everyone involved has similar education and experience,

00:46:05.160 --> 00:46:12.600
 what is the ISO's role? Just to oversee the incident. Yes, ma'am. To oversee the incident,

00:46:12.600 --> 00:46:22.040
 make sure that everybody is functioning safely and making the right decisions.

00:46:22.040 --> 00:46:29.720
 Thank you. Are there questions for Mr. Galbraith?

00:46:29.720 --> 00:46:35.160
 Yes and no. I have kind of a question slash comment.

00:46:37.160 --> 00:46:43.480
 How are you doing, Mr. Galbraith? Oh, doing great. Doing great. Good to see you. Good to see you.

00:46:43.480 --> 00:46:55.800
 You know, if you were just to ask me off the cuff in evaluating

00:46:55.800 --> 00:47:04.280
 situations, what might be the most important, I could probably off the cuff say education

00:47:04.280 --> 00:47:17.160
 and experience. Okay. But when I go to the book and on page, what, 225, it makes that statement

00:47:17.160 --> 00:47:24.680
 underneath that table. It says risk benefit evaluations are paramount when performing ISO

00:47:24.680 --> 00:47:32.760
 functions at the high-angle incident. And that's really the same question there. It's verbatim.

00:47:34.520 --> 00:47:39.480
 So I know that education and experience are important

00:47:39.480 --> 00:47:50.120
 and that's going to prepare you to think clearly and properly in a high-risk situation.

00:47:50.120 --> 00:47:59.080
 But specifically, I think the question was, you know, basically a verbatim quote. What words do

00:47:59.080 --> 00:48:09.160
 you put into that blank of those four options there as the best answer? Your answer is a good

00:48:09.160 --> 00:48:17.560
 answer. Education and experience, it handles a lot. But specifically, it says risk benefit

00:48:17.560 --> 00:48:26.360
 evaluations are paramount. That's a direct verbatim quote. And I think that's kind of what they were

00:48:26.360 --> 00:48:33.480
 looking for is that once you have all the education experience, then this other piece would be at the

00:48:33.480 --> 00:48:40.680
 top of your consideration. I think it's both, if I was going to make it up. I appreciate that.

00:48:40.680 --> 00:48:44.120
 Thank you. Thank you.

00:48:44.120 --> 00:48:50.680
 No other questions. Fire response.

00:48:50.680 --> 00:48:56.120
 The department's response, the department's recommendation is to sustain the key.

00:48:57.000 --> 00:49:02.280
 The question and answer are word for word from the book. The question is referring specifically

00:49:02.280 --> 00:49:09.240
 to the high angle incident. The ASORT referred to in the appeal comes from the introduction

00:49:09.240 --> 00:49:14.680
 to the chapter and addresses general competencies for the incident safety officer for any type of

00:49:14.680 --> 00:49:23.800
 technical rescue incident. Answer A is the one best answer. Thank you, Mike. Questions for fire?

00:49:25.480 --> 00:49:32.520
 I have none. Thank you. All right. Does anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

00:49:32.520 --> 00:49:40.600
 Commissioner, I'd like to say something real quick. I've appealed this same question before

00:49:40.600 --> 00:49:48.360
 on previous tests for the exact same reason that Mr. Galbraith appealed his and it was not

00:49:48.360 --> 00:49:57.160
 overturned at that time either. He was sustained at that time as well. Okay. Thank you.

00:49:57.160 --> 00:50:12.920
 I would entertain a motion on item question five. I move. So move to sustain. Thank you.

00:50:12.920 --> 00:50:17.240
 I'll second. Okay. Moved and seconded. Any discussion?

00:50:18.760 --> 00:50:23.560
 Okay. Just a thank you to Mr. Galbraith for his scholarship. Thank you.

00:50:23.560 --> 00:50:35.080
 Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So number five, sustain key.

00:50:35.080 --> 00:50:47.560
 Next is item 60. Oh, Mr. Galbraith, you're back. You're back without leaving.

00:50:48.520 --> 00:50:50.360
 I'm getting better at this computer stuff.

00:50:50.360 --> 00:50:55.400
 Practice makes perfect.

00:50:55.400 --> 00:51:07.800
 Out of legal considerations is built on this one. This is item 60.

00:51:07.800 --> 00:51:12.360
 Okay. Let me get my notes together from my paralegal.

00:51:18.360 --> 00:51:37.160
 I just wanted to just, you know, I'm peeling this question just because there's, it's,

00:51:37.160 --> 00:51:43.960
 when you're lifting questions out of the book, it has to be, I believe that it has to come within

00:51:43.960 --> 00:51:48.920
 context. And when you're going through six books, memorizing them, you're really trying to,

00:51:48.920 --> 00:51:54.280
 you know, you're always trying to figure out and look and rack your brain, trying to

00:51:54.280 --> 00:52:02.520
 think of triggers that you can obviously answer the most correct, you know, answer for the question.

00:52:02.520 --> 00:52:11.320
 So within this question, critical to the proper function of the entire judicial system is the,

00:52:12.040 --> 00:52:19.240
 and the key to answer is C, appellate process. This book, like I was saying, if you, if you read

00:52:19.240 --> 00:52:26.200
 what I wrote down, I put the federal court system and throughout the book, throughout this book,

00:52:26.200 --> 00:52:32.920
 it's a, it's a humdinger of the book, legal considerations of fire emergency, all they really,

00:52:32.920 --> 00:52:39.480
 they really, really discuss and they go very thoroughly into obviously the different branches

00:52:39.480 --> 00:52:45.560
 of the government. When they, when it, when it's read, when the question, when I read through the

00:52:45.560 --> 00:52:49.960
 question, it says the entire judicial system, I'm going to think the federal court system.

00:52:49.960 --> 00:52:57.560
 And so just within my notes, you're just finding within the book, page five, go to page five and

00:52:57.560 --> 00:53:03.480
 you go to the top of the page. It says the United States constitution serves two primary functions.

00:53:03.480 --> 00:53:09.560
 First, it serves as the supreme law of the land. So when we're talking about, once again, the

00:53:09.560 --> 00:53:16.600
 legalities and you're talking about the court system, I'm thinking, okay, that's going to be,

00:53:16.600 --> 00:53:22.360
 you know, that's when I'm reading that question, I'm thinking the federal court system,

00:53:22.360 --> 00:53:33.960
 supreme court, then you go to page 21. Appellate courts, actually talking about appellate courts

00:53:33.960 --> 00:53:38.920
 are where appeals from trial courts are heard. There are two levels of appellate courts in the

00:53:38.920 --> 00:53:43.240
 federal system, the circuit court of appeals, the United States supreme court, once again,

00:53:43.240 --> 00:53:51.560
 the federal court system. And then page 32, figure two, six, there's a flow chart and it pretty much

00:53:51.560 --> 00:53:58.840
 all the courts, appellate courts, including the tax court, district court are all under the flow

00:53:58.840 --> 00:54:05.560
 chart and at the top is the supreme court of the United States. So this is just another one of those,

00:54:05.560 --> 00:54:12.040
 you know, with the distractors and everything within that. I'm thinking that the number one

00:54:12.040 --> 00:54:15.080
 question to this question is going to be the federal court system.

00:54:19.320 --> 00:54:23.240
 Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Roberts, do you have anything to add?

00:54:23.240 --> 00:54:32.120
 Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. I apologize. I'm out of state and I do not have

00:54:32.120 --> 00:54:37.240
 my material in front of me, but mine's a little bit different than Mr. Galbraith.

00:54:37.240 --> 00:54:43.800
 If you'll refer to page 10, there's a sentence in there and obviously I don't have it directly

00:54:43.800 --> 00:54:49.000
 in front of me, but it does state that case law is an absolute critical source of law.

00:54:49.960 --> 00:55:01.160
 So my answer that I chose was D, knowing that that key term critical and it also states that it is a

00:55:01.160 --> 00:55:08.200
 absolute critical source of law. That was my choice. I'll keep it as short as possible,

00:55:08.200 --> 00:55:16.920
 but that's what led me to make my decision. Okay. Thank you, sir. Question of the appellants.

00:55:19.320 --> 00:55:30.360
 Okay. Going once, going twice.

00:55:30.360 --> 00:55:39.960
 Not so much as much as a dialogue, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Galbraith,

00:55:43.960 --> 00:55:53.320
 can you hear me, sir? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. Good. Good. So I'm going to kind of start with

00:55:53.320 --> 00:56:08.520
 the key. The key basically says on page 31, at the very top, it says critical to the proper

00:56:08.520 --> 00:56:19.640
 functioning of the entire judicial system is the appellate process. So you got here and then you

00:56:19.640 --> 00:56:27.640
 go to the question and the question is says critical to the proper functioning of the entire

00:56:27.640 --> 00:56:35.880
 judicial system is the, and the answer there, once again, is the verbatim answer of the appellate

00:56:35.880 --> 00:56:53.640
 process. The federal courts are an important part, but the ability like today is an appeal, right?

00:56:53.640 --> 00:57:02.680
 It's an appeal. So even though we're not in a court necessarily, we do have an appeal here,

00:57:02.680 --> 00:57:09.400
 and this is kind of critical to this whole thing called the judicial or the system of justice.

00:57:09.400 --> 00:57:18.520
 So I think the federal court system is a good answer, but I think the best answer

00:57:18.520 --> 00:57:28.440
 is the appellate process, as mentioned there on page 31. So as I kind of look through things,

00:57:28.440 --> 00:57:35.800
 that's kind of what I said. You've got all kinds of courts, you know, you've got the city, the county,

00:57:35.800 --> 00:57:48.120
 the state, the federal, you've got the maritime law, you've got foreign law, and integrated within

00:57:48.120 --> 00:57:54.440
 all of those judicial processes, you have the appellate process, and I think that was kind of

00:57:55.320 --> 00:57:59.480
 the thing that they were looking for. So that was my understanding,

00:57:59.480 --> 00:58:05.720
 but thank you nonetheless for your response. I think, John, you're absolutely right in both

00:58:05.720 --> 00:58:15.800
 cases. I think even case law and the federal system all depend on the appellate process.

00:58:15.800 --> 00:58:22.920
 So they were thinking more specific where the question was more general. It's the process,

00:58:22.920 --> 00:58:30.200
 whether it's a state court or an appeal for a question or whatever, it's the appeal process.

00:58:30.200 --> 00:58:33.160
 Fire response.

00:58:33.160 --> 00:58:40.440
 The department's recommendation is to sustain the key. The question and answer are word for

00:58:40.440 --> 00:58:46.760
 word from the book. The question refers to the functioning of a system which involves a process,

00:58:46.760 --> 00:58:51.800
 the appellate process. The book continues to explain the purpose and process of appeals.

00:58:52.680 --> 00:58:59.560
 The book states previously on page 21, which the first appellant referred to, that all court

00:58:59.560 --> 00:59:07.560
 systems allow for at least one level of appeals. In the first appeal received, for this question,

00:59:07.560 --> 00:59:13.160
 the Supreme Court and federal court system are used interchangeably. The federal court system

00:59:13.160 --> 00:59:19.000
 is made up of much more than just the Supreme Court. The appeal also addresses interpretation

00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:25.000
 of law and the constitution, which is not the basis of the question. The second appeal refers

00:59:25.000 --> 00:59:31.000
 to case law as being a critical source of law and states the book implies that case law is critical

00:59:31.000 --> 00:59:37.160
 to the judicial system. The book clearly states the answer to the question and answer C, the

00:59:37.160 --> 00:59:47.400
 appellate process is the one best answer. Okay, questions of fire from the commissioners?

00:59:49.640 --> 00:59:52.760
 Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

00:59:52.760 --> 00:59:59.800
 I did have a question of fire on this one. How did, how did the field do,

00:59:59.800 --> 01:00:06.200
 Mr. Holeslaw, on the, on this particular question? What was it?

01:00:06.200 --> 01:00:16.920
 Four out of ten got the question correct, but there were four got it correct.

01:00:19.560 --> 01:00:25.800
 There were, there was one A, three Bs,

01:00:25.800 --> 01:00:31.800
 four Cs and two Bs. So it was kind of all over the place.

01:00:31.800 --> 01:00:37.480
 So is that indicative, you think, of a clear question and a clear answer,

01:00:37.480 --> 01:00:41.400
 or maybe there's some work needed there? Maybe there's some work needed there.

01:00:41.400 --> 01:00:45.000
 Thank you. Yes, sir.

01:00:48.440 --> 01:00:50.200
 All right, I would entertain a motion.

01:00:50.200 --> 01:01:00.680
 I think before I make a motion, I'd like to make a comment if that's okay.

01:01:00.680 --> 01:01:07.480
 Jamie, we're supposed to do the motion first, then we can, then we can discuss.

01:01:07.480 --> 01:01:15.080
 Okay, so I move to sustain for both counts the appeal of question 60.

01:01:15.880 --> 01:01:22.280
 Okay. Okay, I second. Okay, now discussion.

01:01:22.280 --> 01:01:26.680
 All right. This is my first meeting. You guys threw me into the fire here, literally.

01:01:26.680 --> 01:01:33.960
 So I think for me, this question, gentlemen, I really appreciate your appeal.

01:01:33.960 --> 01:01:38.680
 This, to me, comes down to the best answer and some good answers.

01:01:39.240 --> 01:01:46.840
 So I think that Commissioner Bain's comments about revising this test question at some point

01:01:46.840 --> 01:01:53.720
 in the future to make things even more clear is a good one. But I think overall, what I have heard

01:01:53.720 --> 01:02:00.760
 feedback-wise today leads me to believe that the best possible answer is the appellate process,

01:02:00.760 --> 01:02:07.000
 even though there are some other choices here that I think are valuable to the judicial system.

01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:12.680
 So I appreciate both of you, gentlemen, for bringing it to our attention,

01:02:12.680 --> 01:02:16.360
 but I do feel like it's the question that we need to sustain today.

01:02:16.360 --> 01:02:27.560
 Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor of sustaining the keys, say aye.

01:02:27.560 --> 01:02:29.480
 Aye.

01:02:29.480 --> 01:02:30.120
 Aye.

01:02:30.120 --> 01:02:30.620
 Aye.

01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:43.640
 No opposition. All right. Next is item 65. We have two appellates, same two appellates on this one.

01:02:43.640 --> 01:02:52.760
 Let's let Mr. Roberts go first this time.

01:02:52.760 --> 01:03:01.720
 Okay. Thank you, sir. As it stated in mine, well, let me go to the question. So the question

01:03:01.720 --> 01:03:07.560
 just says it's an act. It's not specific to what type of an act. So I believe there are two correct

01:03:07.560 --> 01:03:17.320
 answers. In mine, there's also what's called a duty to act, which is an act. And those arise

01:03:17.320 --> 01:03:25.080
 from a statute, I guess, for lack of better terms. The book states both acts, whether affirmative or

01:03:25.080 --> 01:03:30.040
 failure to act, both voluntarily and by statute. I feel that both of them are correct.

01:03:31.720 --> 01:03:42.280
 Okay. You're saying that c and d are both correct answers. Is that right?

01:03:42.280 --> 01:03:44.520
 Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I apologize. I left that out.

01:03:44.520 --> 01:03:54.840
 Okay. That's fine. That's fine. That's my job. Clarify. Make sure. Okay. Mr. Galbraith.

01:03:57.880 --> 01:04:05.800
 I know y'all miss me. So this is just another, it's just another one, you know,

01:04:05.800 --> 01:04:15.080
 tough question, tough answers. And so within this question, an act, whether affirmative

01:04:15.080 --> 01:04:22.360
 or a failure to act must be voluntary in nature. If you go to the next page underneath the gray

01:04:22.360 --> 01:04:29.400
 box, a duty to act may also arise when a, where a statute imposes a duty to act.

01:04:29.400 --> 01:04:37.160
 So it's, once again, it's, it's in the context of the question. The question is

01:04:37.160 --> 01:04:45.560
 voluntary in nature and a statute. So this is where it becomes, when you're taking the test,

01:04:45.560 --> 01:04:49.480
 like I said, and you're going through six books, you're really trying to, what is the, you know,

01:04:49.480 --> 01:04:56.840
 what's my best answer? Like Ms. Blanton says. And so this right here gives you both scenarios. You

01:04:56.840 --> 01:05:02.360
 have a statute, which is a duty to act. And then you also have, it has to be voluntary in nature.

01:05:02.360 --> 01:05:12.600
 So it's, I believe both answers are correct. Totally correct.

01:05:12.600 --> 01:05:17.080
 Mr. Galbraith, can you give me that reference again, please? Your reference webpage.

01:05:18.360 --> 01:05:24.120
 Next page over Mr. Baines on right underneath sidebar, the sidebar gray box.

01:05:24.120 --> 01:05:27.240
 The page number?

01:05:27.240 --> 01:05:29.320
 Ninety-five.

01:05:29.320 --> 01:05:39.240
 Ninety-five. Okay. Thank you.

01:05:48.680 --> 01:05:56.040
 Would you, would you indulge me Mr. Galbraith and give me your explanation again, please,

01:05:56.040 --> 01:06:01.800
 as to why you believe there's an additional answer or a different, a more correct answer.

01:06:01.800 --> 01:06:08.440
 The question is an act, whether affirmative or a failure to act must be voluntary in nature.

01:06:08.440 --> 01:06:15.560
 The key question they want is voluntary in nature. If you go to 95 where, where I referenced you,

01:06:15.560 --> 01:06:20.680
 a duty to act may also arise where a statute imposes a duty to act.

01:06:20.680 --> 01:06:35.080
 So voluntary in nature and also the act in some form, according to this book and to this text,

01:06:35.080 --> 01:06:36.920
 there's also a statute to act.

01:06:44.920 --> 01:06:47.560
 Okay. Let me ask you a question, Brandon.

01:06:47.560 --> 01:06:50.760
 I'm ready.

01:06:50.760 --> 01:06:58.280
 You're driving along the highway here in Denton, speed limit 65 and you're going 75.

01:06:58.280 --> 01:07:06.040
 Policeman, you drive by a policeman and the policeman decides that they're not going to

01:07:06.040 --> 01:07:12.680
 pull you over in this particular incident, instance and let you go.

01:07:15.640 --> 01:07:20.360
 Was that compelled by a statute or was it voluntary in nature?

01:07:20.360 --> 01:07:23.000
 My act or his act?

01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:23.500
 His.

01:07:23.500 --> 01:07:28.360
 He's by statute because he's a peace officer, has to act.

01:07:28.360 --> 01:07:37.880
 But he didn't. He voluntarily chose not to in that particular case in the circumstances.

01:07:37.880 --> 01:07:44.040
 Absolutely. He's also a sworn peace officer. So he's under statute to act.

01:07:45.640 --> 01:07:46.140
 Okay.

01:07:46.140 --> 01:07:53.080
 But again, but he chose not to. So it's all voluntary.

01:07:53.080 --> 01:08:02.120
 You voluntarily chose to speed and luckily he voluntarily chose not to give you a ticket.

01:08:02.120 --> 01:08:05.800
 Can I ask you a question, Mr. Ramsey?

01:08:05.800 --> 01:08:06.300
 Certainly.

01:08:06.300 --> 01:08:11.000
 I'm driving down the road and I'm in uniform and I'm just off duty

01:08:11.640 --> 01:08:15.160
 and a family member of yours gets into a wreck and I drive right by him.

01:08:15.160 --> 01:08:20.200
 Do I have as a statute, as a civil service, as a firefighter,

01:08:20.200 --> 01:08:22.440
 should I stop and render aid to your family member?

01:08:22.440 --> 01:08:30.600
 I would hope that you would, but it would still be a voluntary act.

01:08:30.600 --> 01:08:38.360
 That's statute I have to stop to render aid. That's a duty to act.

01:08:41.640 --> 01:08:45.400
 Okay. Mr. Ramsey, may I add to that as well?

01:08:45.400 --> 01:08:46.620
 Certainly.

01:08:46.620 --> 01:08:52.600
 So what I read in the book goes along with exactly what Mr. Galbraith is saying.

01:08:52.600 --> 01:08:56.440
 On 95, I believe it says something to do with a state that imposed a statute

01:08:56.440 --> 01:09:03.880
 to a duty to act, a render aid type thing. And yes, Galbraith is 100% correct.

01:09:03.880 --> 01:09:07.320
 We have a duty to act. We can't just pass it up.

01:09:08.200 --> 01:09:15.080
 So that's where the question was not completely worded on which act they're talking about.

01:09:15.080 --> 01:09:19.000
 There's a duty to act and another kind of act, which is an action, I guess.

01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:22.120
 But just to add on to what he's saying, he's correct, I believe.

01:09:22.120 --> 01:09:36.520
 My question is related to you. You gentlemen are both contesting.

01:09:36.520 --> 01:09:42.120
 Is this correct that you think there are two correct answers, not just the one, right?

01:09:42.120 --> 01:09:46.040
 So you guys both agree voluntary in nature is correct.

01:09:46.040 --> 01:09:50.680
 Because you've said so to Commissioner Ramsey, right?

01:09:50.680 --> 01:09:51.180
 Yes.

01:09:51.180 --> 01:09:55.480
 But you both also believe that D is correct. Is that true?

01:09:55.480 --> 01:10:02.280
 No, we both believe that, well, I speak for myself.

01:10:02.280 --> 01:10:06.200
 I believe that D is also correct compelled by a statute.

01:10:06.200 --> 01:10:10.680
 And in the book, it discusses certain states that put those statutes on drivers,

01:10:10.680 --> 01:10:15.960
 not necessarily EMS workers, but drivers passing a scene of an accident

01:10:15.960 --> 01:10:18.280
 or causing an accident and not rendering aid.

01:10:18.280 --> 01:10:20.760
 We are both wanting both.

01:10:20.760 --> 01:10:25.480
 Both are wanting CMD to accept CMD.

01:10:25.480 --> 01:10:26.920
 Yes, sir.

01:10:26.920 --> 01:10:33.800
 So as written, so option D says only compelled by statute, right?

01:10:33.800 --> 01:10:35.160
 That's the question you guys got.

01:10:36.840 --> 01:10:39.240
 Yes, but we believe both are correct.

01:10:39.240 --> 01:10:41.480
 Okay.

01:10:41.480 --> 01:10:45.240
 Well, that was my question as well, Jamie.

01:10:45.240 --> 01:10:52.760
 Commissioner Blanton was that if you're going to put that descriptor in front that says only

01:10:52.760 --> 01:10:57.720
 compelled by statute, that means you can't have any other answers.

01:10:57.720 --> 01:10:59.880
 That's the only answer.

01:10:59.880 --> 01:11:04.760
 Well, that's what we're questioning and there's no description of what this act is.

01:11:05.720 --> 01:11:12.040
 So rendering aid or passing an accident can only be compelled by a statute,

01:11:12.040 --> 01:11:14.280
 whereas other acts are also voluntary in nature.

01:11:14.280 --> 01:11:19.320
 So there's no description of what act they're talking about.

01:11:19.320 --> 01:11:22.280
 Right?

01:11:22.280 --> 01:11:25.720
 The statement says you must do something.

01:11:25.720 --> 01:11:27.080
 You guys have both agreed.

01:11:27.080 --> 01:11:31.320
 You must, it must be voluntary.

01:11:31.320 --> 01:11:34.200
 No, ma'am.

01:11:34.200 --> 01:11:36.840
 Right?

01:11:36.840 --> 01:11:37.800
 You don't agree.

01:11:37.800 --> 01:11:38.360
 Okay.

01:11:38.360 --> 01:11:39.160
 No, ma'am.

01:11:39.160 --> 01:11:43.080
 So you're saying C is wrong then?

01:11:43.080 --> 01:11:49.240
 No, I'm saying that an act as a criminal act must be voluntary in nature.

01:11:49.240 --> 01:11:56.040
 An act put on by a certain state as to render aid, you have a duty to act.

01:11:56.040 --> 01:11:59.400
 So that's what I'm saying is the question is not specific to,

01:11:59.400 --> 01:12:02.440
 are you asking about a criminal act or the duty to act?

01:12:03.640 --> 01:12:09.720
 So I believe that both can be correct depending on what they're truly asking of the question.

01:12:09.720 --> 01:12:10.520
 Right, right.

01:12:10.520 --> 01:12:12.920
 So now you said that both cannot be correct.

01:12:12.920 --> 01:12:14.200
 That's what I was waiting for you to say.

01:12:14.200 --> 01:12:15.960
 It's got to be one or the other.

01:12:15.960 --> 01:12:17.320
 No, sir, I must have cut out.

01:12:17.320 --> 01:12:18.760
 Both of them can be correct.

01:12:18.760 --> 01:12:22.840
 A criminal act must be voluntary in nature.

01:12:22.840 --> 01:12:28.360
 A duty to act can be voluntary, but in some states it's compelled by a statute.

01:12:28.360 --> 01:12:30.280
 There are statutes written for that specifically.

01:12:31.720 --> 01:12:34.920
 So let's go back to page 94.

01:12:34.920 --> 01:12:38.120
 I realize you don't have your book, but I'm going to read it for you.

01:12:38.120 --> 01:12:39.400
 Yes, sir.

01:12:39.400 --> 01:12:44.440
 It says an essential element of every crime is an act.

01:12:44.440 --> 01:12:48.520
 Yes, sir, criminal act.

01:12:48.520 --> 01:12:49.480
 Of every crime.

01:12:49.480 --> 01:12:51.960
 So this is a criminal act.

01:12:51.960 --> 01:12:58.200
 It depends on how you read the question, I guess.

01:12:58.200 --> 01:12:58.760
 I mean, there's--

01:12:58.760 --> 01:13:01.160
 No, I'm not at the question yet.

01:13:01.160 --> 01:13:01.960
 I'm not at the question.

01:13:01.960 --> 01:13:03.800
 I'm just reading this section in the book.

01:13:03.800 --> 01:13:04.680
 Okay.

01:13:04.680 --> 01:13:05.640
 Okay.

01:13:05.640 --> 01:13:09.080
 In the book, it says this is 5.6.1.

01:13:09.080 --> 01:13:09.880
 It says act.

01:13:09.880 --> 01:13:15.480
 It says an essential element of every crime is an act.

01:13:15.480 --> 01:13:17.160
 Okay.

01:13:17.160 --> 01:13:26.040
 So this criminal act can be affirmative action taken or the failure to act.

01:13:27.560 --> 01:13:34.360
 So that means you're committing a crime or you're failing to act is considered a crime.

01:13:34.360 --> 01:13:36.040
 Yes, sir.

01:13:36.040 --> 01:13:36.440
 We're talking--

01:13:36.440 --> 01:13:38.040
 Are we together?

01:13:38.040 --> 01:13:39.560
 Yes, sir.

01:13:39.560 --> 01:13:41.720
 I'd like to add also, though.

01:13:41.720 --> 01:13:42.120
 Okay.

01:13:42.120 --> 01:13:42.360
 Okay.

01:13:42.360 --> 01:13:42.760
 Go ahead.

01:13:42.760 --> 01:13:47.480
 In those-- in that context, you're talking about a criminal act.

01:13:47.480 --> 01:13:56.040
 If you go to page 95, it states the duty to act also arises where a statute imposes a duty to act.

01:13:57.240 --> 01:14:00.840
 And in the book, it talks about-- I don't remember exactly what state.

01:14:00.840 --> 01:14:04.360
 They impose a statute for that.

01:14:04.360 --> 01:14:09.080
 And Commissioner Baines, I just wanted to say,

01:14:09.080 --> 01:14:16.600
 if you're reading in the context of this sentence that you've led up to the actual test question,

01:14:16.600 --> 01:14:22.040
 they're leading this paragraph off with criminal act.

01:14:22.040 --> 01:14:23.400
 Right, right.

01:14:23.400 --> 01:14:27.560
 Then you get the test question and it just says ACT, act.

01:14:27.560 --> 01:14:31.560
 So when you're taking the test and you're going through the test,

01:14:31.560 --> 01:14:33.560
 I don't know-- we don't know what act you're talking about.

01:14:33.560 --> 01:14:34.840
 Are you talking about criminal?

01:14:34.840 --> 01:14:37.800
 Are you talking about-- are you talking about a statute?

01:14:37.800 --> 01:14:41.880
 I just want to make that clear to the commissioners that when you're

01:14:41.880 --> 01:14:47.720
 talking about the test and you're going through this and you're trying to put it out there,

01:14:47.720 --> 01:14:52.760
 that it's hard to really differentiate what act are we speaking of because it's not listed.

01:14:52.760 --> 01:14:54.200
 In the question.

01:14:54.200 --> 01:14:55.560
 I agree with you.

01:14:55.560 --> 01:15:01.640
 So when you come to this, there's a big element of confusion here.

01:15:01.640 --> 01:15:04.200
 There's a big element of confusion.

01:15:04.200 --> 01:15:04.920
 For me, there is.

01:15:04.920 --> 01:15:07.240
 Yeah.

01:15:07.240 --> 01:15:13.080
 So I'm just trying to make sure-- I won't say I go through every rabbit hole,

01:15:13.080 --> 01:15:18.600
 but at least I try to take every possibility to see if I can see it your way

01:15:19.240 --> 01:15:26.440
 or if I need to see it the way of the-- so I'm trying to make sure I ask the questions.

01:15:26.440 --> 01:15:29.080
 And I'm not rushing.

01:15:29.080 --> 01:15:29.720
 I'm not rushing.

01:15:29.720 --> 01:15:30.520
 I'm taking my time.

01:15:30.520 --> 01:15:36.280
 So if somebody's upset with me, I apologize for taking my time.

01:15:36.280 --> 01:15:45.640
 So now this question then-- now I don't know if it's fair.

01:15:45.640 --> 01:15:51.000
 I don't know if that's the right description to use, that when you're being tested on this

01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:57.800
 particular item, if you can remember this specific place and this particular context.

01:15:57.800 --> 01:16:04.120
 But when you come to the test, it says an act, whether affirmative or a failure to act

01:16:04.120 --> 01:16:12.120
 must be-- it's a direct quote, but I think, like you say, the context there is a little difficult.

01:16:15.640 --> 01:16:21.800
 I'd like to hear from the-- I don't know, Darrell, if this is the appropriate place,

01:16:21.800 --> 01:16:24.840
 but I'd like to hear from the department, if we could.

01:16:24.840 --> 01:16:25.720
 Sure, sure.

01:16:25.720 --> 01:16:32.280
 I have a comment that I-- but let's go ahead and hear the department response.

01:16:32.280 --> 01:16:37.080
 The department's recommendation is to sustain the key.

01:16:37.080 --> 01:16:42.280
 The question and answer are word for word from the book, as you've all read.

01:16:43.240 --> 01:16:47.400
 In both appeals they receive, they refer to a duty to act,

01:16:47.400 --> 01:16:50.040
 which the book does state may be imposed by statute.

01:16:50.040 --> 01:16:53.960
 An act is an element of a crime.

01:16:53.960 --> 01:17:02.760
 A duty to act is an obligation which results from a relationship between two parties,

01:17:02.760 --> 01:17:06.520
 which results in an action or a failure to act.

01:17:06.520 --> 01:17:12.840
 In either case, both appeals request answer D to be accepted.

01:17:12.840 --> 01:17:19.400
 Answer D is not a valid answer because it states only compelled by a statute.

01:17:19.400 --> 01:17:22.600
 Answer C is the one best answer.

01:17:22.600 --> 01:17:30.360
 Questions of fire.

01:17:36.360 --> 01:17:48.360
 Step one, if response D had listed not the word only, but been just compelled by a statute

01:17:48.360 --> 01:17:52.840
 without that additional term, would it have been also an acceptable answer?

01:17:52.840 --> 01:17:56.760
 My interpretation--

01:17:56.760 --> 01:17:59.320
 Sorry, the question is to you, sir.

01:17:59.320 --> 01:17:59.640
 Thank you.

01:17:59.640 --> 01:18:04.600
 My interpretation of the book is-- or of the question.

01:18:04.600 --> 01:18:06.680
 The question refers to an act.

01:18:06.680 --> 01:18:15.560
 The book, as Mr. Baines read, says an essential element of every crime is an act.

01:18:15.560 --> 01:18:17.960
 So to me, an act is an element of a crime.

01:18:17.960 --> 01:18:22.360
 A duty to act is a different thing.

01:18:22.360 --> 01:18:33.480
 So I think specifically the question is asking about an act.

01:18:35.560 --> 01:18:36.040
 Thank you.

01:18:36.040 --> 01:18:36.540
 Thank you.

01:18:36.540 --> 01:18:41.400
 Darryl, you're the wise one here, sir.

01:18:41.400 --> 01:18:44.440
 I'm going to have to defer to you, Dr. Ramsey.

01:18:44.440 --> 01:18:46.520
 Can we bring in the lawyers?

01:18:46.520 --> 01:18:55.880
 The reason I'm saying that is there's some confusion here.

01:18:55.880 --> 01:19:03.640
 This is confusing because if you go back to 5.6.1,

01:19:04.920 --> 01:19:10.280
 and that LEAD statement says an essential element of every crime is an act.

01:19:10.280 --> 01:19:19.160
 So as a public servant, we have a-- public servants have a responsibility to serve.

01:19:19.160 --> 01:19:22.200
 As someone said, you can't just drive by.

01:19:22.200 --> 01:19:23.800
 Say, I didn't see that.

01:19:23.800 --> 01:19:27.000
 That's just like me as a citizen.

01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:28.360
 I see an accident.

01:19:28.360 --> 01:19:36.280
 I think I can be convicted of a crime for failure to render aid when I saw a need there.

01:19:36.280 --> 01:19:40.200
 If somebody saw me leave, that puts me in jeopardy.

01:19:40.200 --> 01:19:42.200
 So there's a duty there.

01:19:42.200 --> 01:19:47.880
 But to put that word only, throws more confusion in.

01:19:47.880 --> 01:19:53.640
 So to me, I'm not the smartest, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

01:19:53.640 --> 01:19:57.480
 I got a little sharpness, but to me, there's a little work that needs to be done here.

01:19:57.480 --> 01:20:01.320
 Mr. Chairman.

01:20:01.320 --> 01:20:05.960
 I would like to ask a question of the fire department related to this question,

01:20:05.960 --> 01:20:10.280
 and it's the same one that Commissioner Baines asked for the prior appeal.

01:20:10.280 --> 01:20:14.040
 I would like to know, of the four responses,

01:20:14.040 --> 01:20:19.800
 how many selected the correct response versus the alternate choices?

01:20:21.240 --> 01:20:28.040
 Four selected the correct response, four selected D to selected A.

01:20:28.040 --> 01:20:34.520
 And the other four selected C.

01:20:34.520 --> 01:20:38.600
 Yes, yes, sir.

01:20:38.600 --> 01:20:40.360
 Okay, there were 10 responses total.

01:20:40.360 --> 01:20:41.880
 Yes, sir.

01:20:41.880 --> 01:20:42.600
 Okay, thank you.

01:20:42.600 --> 01:20:47.320
 I'm going to entertain a motion.

01:20:52.200 --> 01:20:54.120
 Are we going to hear from the opposition?

01:20:54.120 --> 01:20:59.720
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:20:59.720 --> 01:21:01.960
 Yes, sir.

01:21:01.960 --> 01:21:03.160
 I would, please.

01:21:03.160 --> 01:21:03.960
 Chad Neely.

01:21:03.960 --> 01:21:04.460
 Yes, sir.

01:21:04.460 --> 01:21:05.640
 Hi.

01:21:05.640 --> 01:21:06.760
 How's everybody doing?

01:21:06.760 --> 01:21:08.600
 Good.

01:21:08.600 --> 01:21:09.100
 Good.

01:21:09.100 --> 01:21:12.040
 I get that this is a confusing question.

01:21:12.040 --> 01:21:16.440
 I understand as being one of the four people that answer the question correctly that

01:21:18.120 --> 01:21:22.920
 I want to just kind of break this down in my head to you all of how I came to that answer.

01:21:22.920 --> 01:21:23.560
 That makes sense?

01:21:23.560 --> 01:21:25.080
 Yes.

01:21:25.080 --> 01:21:37.080
 Okay, first of all, the question is referring to under act, 5.6.1 says act.

01:21:37.080 --> 01:21:41.720
 So we're talking about an act specifically.

01:21:41.720 --> 01:21:44.120
 A general duty to act is different.

01:21:44.120 --> 01:21:47.560
 We're talking a general duty to act or general duty to do something.

01:21:48.440 --> 01:21:51.480
 Is different than a general than an act and act.

01:21:51.480 --> 01:21:59.160
 And again, to back up the department's response is an act specifically is an element of a crime.

01:21:59.160 --> 01:22:02.760
 So we're talking specifically about an act in that response.

01:22:02.760 --> 01:22:05.320
 And I understand that it can get confusing.

01:22:05.320 --> 01:22:13.400
 And I understand the guys appeal in this because it is a big book and I get it gets confusing.

01:22:14.280 --> 01:22:19.400
 But I want to go back to the point that it says only compelled by a statute.

01:22:19.400 --> 01:22:27.560
 And their reference on page 95 says a duty to act may also arise

01:22:27.560 --> 01:22:30.840
 where a statute imposes a duty to act.

01:22:30.840 --> 01:22:39.320
 If that Senate said a duty to act only anywhere in that Senate says only,

01:22:39.960 --> 01:22:44.600
 then I could get that argument, but when you have an answer,

01:22:44.600 --> 01:22:50.360
 especially on a test like this that says only, that means only.

01:22:50.360 --> 01:22:52.760
 That means that's the only answer.

01:22:52.760 --> 01:22:55.240
 Anything above that can't be correct.

01:22:55.240 --> 01:22:59.960
 So to argue that both answers are correct doesn't make any sense.

01:22:59.960 --> 01:23:08.760
 So again, under the fact that it says act, 5.6.1 says act.

01:23:08.760 --> 01:23:10.040
 This says an act.

01:23:10.040 --> 01:23:16.840
 And then the question and answer are word for word verbatim from the book.

01:23:16.840 --> 01:23:22.280
 And they're talking about an act as reference to an element of a crime,

01:23:22.280 --> 01:23:28.520
 not a general duty to do something or act, an action, a general duty action.

01:23:28.520 --> 01:23:31.240
 In other words, so let me say this.

01:23:32.280 --> 01:23:38.760
 And Buck's response to, hey, if I drive by your family and they're in a wreck,

01:23:38.760 --> 01:23:42.120
 do I have a duty to act?

01:23:42.120 --> 01:23:44.920
 Well, in some states, you have a duty to act.

01:23:44.920 --> 01:23:47.240
 And in fact, the book, I can't remember the two states,

01:23:47.240 --> 01:23:53.080
 but there's two states that you can actually be criminalized for not doing something.

01:23:53.080 --> 01:23:57.080
 But not all states are like that.

01:23:57.080 --> 01:24:00.440
 In some states, as a paramedic, I can absolutely drive by

01:24:00.440 --> 01:24:03.720
 and see some dude on the side of the road because this happens a lot in Denton,

01:24:03.720 --> 01:24:08.200
 unfortunately, that as homeless man that is asleep on the side of the road,

01:24:08.200 --> 01:24:09.720
 and I can keep on driving.

01:24:09.720 --> 01:24:13.000
 And the fact is, I'm not going to get arrested for not checking on that guy.

01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:21.400
 So there's no statute that only like my duty to act is not impressed only by statute.

01:24:21.400 --> 01:24:25.960
 It would be my voluntary act to pull over and help that guy.

01:24:25.960 --> 01:24:30.280
 And we're not talking about specifically in Texas, talking about across the country.

01:24:31.240 --> 01:24:35.720
 So again, my argument is to get this question,

01:24:35.720 --> 01:24:39.720
 to understand the question, you have to understand what the question is asking.

01:24:39.720 --> 01:24:45.160
 The question is asking is under act, which it says 5.6.1.

01:24:45.160 --> 01:24:50.200
 And the fact that the answer says only that they're arguing could be correct.

01:24:50.200 --> 01:24:56.280
 Just the verbiage of the answer means two questions, two answers can't be correct.

01:24:57.640 --> 01:25:04.840
 And clearly voluntary in nature is verbatim from the book and also correct.

01:25:04.840 --> 01:25:08.120
 Does that make sense?

01:25:08.120 --> 01:25:09.000
 Yes.

01:25:09.000 --> 01:25:11.240
 Okay. Thank you for listening to me.

01:25:11.240 --> 01:25:12.200
 I appreciate your time.

01:25:12.200 --> 01:25:13.640
 Thank you.

01:25:13.640 --> 01:25:20.520
 Mr. Chairman, you penalize these two gentlemen who

01:25:20.520 --> 01:25:25.400
 undoubtedly have worked very hard and have also worked hard on their appeal.

01:25:26.680 --> 01:25:31.560
 But if we make more than one answer correct,

01:25:31.560 --> 01:25:34.360
 then we penalize the others that did get it correct.

01:25:34.360 --> 01:25:36.120
 And we're talking about dollars here.

01:25:36.120 --> 01:25:42.920
 And so I'm going to make a motion that we sustain the key with the caveat

01:25:42.920 --> 01:25:45.480
 that we've got to do a better job on this question.

01:25:45.480 --> 01:25:46.760
 It is confusing.

01:25:46.760 --> 01:25:52.440
 And I apologize to Mr. Gilbreth and to Mr. Roberts that

01:25:55.640 --> 01:26:00.680
 for the confusion, but I do applaud you for your tenacity and your scholarship.

01:26:00.680 --> 01:26:11.320
 So that's a long notion, but I want to confirm the sustain the key.

01:26:11.320 --> 01:26:15.560
 I'll second the motion.

01:26:15.560 --> 01:26:19.880
 Now, do we have any discussion among us?

01:26:21.880 --> 01:26:27.160
 I will say politely and very respectfully that I disagree with Commissioner Baines.

01:26:27.160 --> 01:26:32.760
 I actually feel like this question is more clear than the one we discussed previously

01:26:32.760 --> 01:26:38.040
 because of two key words, and that's must and only.

01:26:38.040 --> 01:26:46.840
 So I was inclined or would have been inclined to entertain more possible dismissal

01:26:46.840 --> 01:26:49.960
 of the question and acceptance of the appeal.

01:26:49.960 --> 01:26:56.360
 But those two very distinctive words are what makes this very sustainable, in my opinion.

01:26:56.360 --> 01:27:03.880
 Any other discussion?

01:27:03.880 --> 01:27:12.120
 Motion on the floor is to sustain the key of 65.

01:27:12.120 --> 01:27:14.360
 All in favor say aye.

01:27:14.360 --> 01:27:16.040
 Aye.

01:27:16.040 --> 01:27:16.680
 Aye.

01:27:16.680 --> 01:27:17.180
 Aye.

01:27:19.960 --> 01:27:20.460
 Okay.

01:27:20.460 --> 01:27:25.240
 Permissioners, before moving to the next question, I have just a suggestion.

01:27:25.240 --> 01:27:26.360
 Yes, ma'am.

01:27:26.360 --> 01:27:35.160
 Before going maybe into a rather detailed discussion regarding the appeal in terms of

01:27:35.160 --> 01:27:43.320
 the question, I would recommend that we get the department's response first and then

01:27:43.320 --> 01:27:50.440
 thereafter go into a more deeper discussion in regard to the thought process and

01:27:50.440 --> 01:27:54.040
 analyzation of the appeal itself.

01:27:54.040 --> 01:27:57.880
 Very noted.

01:27:57.880 --> 01:28:07.720
 We have the department response, so we've kind of known what their response is all along.

01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:13.960
 I know, it just allows the fire department to do a little bit more work.

01:28:13.960 --> 01:28:17.080
 I love the fire department, I really do.

01:28:17.080 --> 01:28:22.280
 But I think Michael would love to just be able to say a little bit more.

01:28:22.280 --> 01:28:23.880
 Thank you, Stephanie.

01:28:23.880 --> 01:28:33.160
 Next question is question 85,

01:28:38.200 --> 01:28:39.800
 which is Mr. Johnson.

01:28:39.800 --> 01:28:41.660
 Yes, sir.

01:28:41.660 --> 01:28:47.400
 I'm here and since the department decided to accept my appeal,

01:28:47.400 --> 01:28:51.480
 unless there's any further discussion, I'm good on this question.

01:28:51.480 --> 01:28:57.820
 Okay.

01:29:06.120 --> 01:29:10.520
 Why don't I think, I'm trying to think procedurally now.

01:29:10.520 --> 01:29:11.020
 Okay.

01:29:11.020 --> 01:29:13.400
 So bear with me.

01:29:13.400 --> 01:29:22.840
 I think you probably should go ahead and read your appeal in and then get the response.

01:29:22.840 --> 01:29:27.720
 Because if you take your appeal away, then we don't discuss the question.

01:29:27.720 --> 01:29:29.080
 Okay, that's fine.

01:29:29.080 --> 01:29:29.640
 Yeah, I don't mind.

01:29:29.640 --> 01:29:32.520
 So basically, I appealed this question.

01:29:33.320 --> 01:29:39.320
 I said that answer B is also a correct answer due to the fact that both beams and girders

01:29:39.320 --> 01:29:44.120
 are structural members that can carry loads perpendicular to their longitudinal dimensions,

01:29:44.120 --> 01:29:45.320
 as stated in the question.

01:29:45.320 --> 01:29:51.880
 And the main difference is that girders just typically span greater distances than beams can.

01:29:51.880 --> 01:29:59.560
 And this can be visualized in the picture in figure 9.17 on the bottom of page 248,

01:29:59.560 --> 01:30:03.720
 and in the description of girders directly above that picture on the same page.

01:30:03.720 --> 01:30:09.880
 So for this reason, I chose answer B as both answers B and C are correct.

01:30:09.880 --> 01:30:14.120
 You're saying D is in delta, right?

01:30:14.120 --> 01:30:16.920
 Yep, D is in delta is correct as well.

01:30:16.920 --> 01:30:18.060
 Okay.

01:30:18.060 --> 01:30:23.100
 Questions?

01:30:23.100 --> 01:30:26.120
 I have none.

01:30:26.120 --> 01:30:26.620
 Thank you.

01:30:28.120 --> 01:30:31.160
 Do I respond?

01:30:31.160 --> 01:30:31.660
 Yes, sir.

01:30:31.660 --> 01:30:39.320
 The department's recommendation is to accept the appeal, as stated in Mr. Johnson's appeal.

01:30:39.320 --> 01:30:47.080
 In addition to answer C, the book does state on page 248 that joist girders are heavy steel

01:30:47.080 --> 01:30:52.760
 trusses used to take the place of steel beams as part of the primary structural frame,

01:30:52.760 --> 01:30:56.120
 except both C and D.

01:30:58.920 --> 01:30:59.420
 Okay.

01:30:59.420 --> 01:31:01.880
 Questions of fire?

01:31:01.880 --> 01:31:05.000
 No questions of fire.

01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:09.240
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:31:09.240 --> 01:31:11.080
 I would like to, please.

01:31:11.080 --> 01:31:12.140
 Yes, sir.

01:31:12.140 --> 01:31:19.080
 I believe since we've been given this answer quite often,

01:31:19.080 --> 01:31:21.960
 I believe if you go strictly by what the book says,

01:31:21.960 --> 01:31:25.480
 it's word for word that C, Charlie is the correct answer.

01:31:26.600 --> 01:31:31.960
 As Mr. Bain stated that there's good answers and then there's best answers,

01:31:31.960 --> 01:31:36.120
 and Ms. Blanton also stated that as well.

01:31:36.120 --> 01:31:39.240
 There seems to be a lot of hang up on key words.

01:31:39.240 --> 01:31:41.320
 Again, I apologize.

01:31:41.320 --> 01:31:45.160
 I don't have the material in front of me, but joist girders, as in the book,

01:31:45.160 --> 01:31:46.440
 is not one of the choices.

01:31:46.440 --> 01:31:48.520
 It specifically states a girder.

01:31:48.520 --> 01:31:53.400
 I would encourage you to visit that just a little bit.

01:31:57.560 --> 01:31:59.320
 Thank you, Mr. Roberts.

01:31:59.320 --> 01:32:03.000
 Commissioner Ramsey, I just wanted to say for an hour and a half,

01:32:03.000 --> 01:32:05.960
 we've been really sticking to word for word verbatim,

01:32:05.960 --> 01:32:13.560
 getting the response from the fire department and the commissioner saying

01:32:13.560 --> 01:32:17.640
 we're sticking to what is said in the book, word for word.

01:32:17.640 --> 01:32:23.400
 Well, this is an example like Mr. Roberts says that this is in the book,

01:32:23.400 --> 01:32:28.920
 stating being is a structural member and then the definition.

01:32:28.920 --> 01:32:32.040
 I just wanted to reiterate that.

01:32:32.040 --> 01:32:32.540
 Thank you.

01:32:32.540 --> 01:32:36.600
 Can I speak again, commissioner?

01:32:36.600 --> 01:32:40.200
 Do I have the opportunity since I'm speaking forward instead of against it at this time?

01:32:40.200 --> 01:32:42.520
 Sure, go ahead.

01:32:42.520 --> 01:32:43.720
 Okay.

01:32:43.720 --> 01:32:48.840
 I just want to say that if the book also states that girders can be used in place

01:32:48.840 --> 01:32:53.880
 of heavy steel beams as part of a structural, that is saying the same thing

01:32:53.880 --> 01:32:56.200
 from the book, from the source material.

01:32:56.200 --> 01:32:58.440
 I didn't pull this from an outside reference.

01:32:58.440 --> 01:33:01.160
 It is word for word, just from a different section of the book.

01:33:01.160 --> 01:33:06.380
 Okay.

01:33:06.380 --> 01:33:10.280
 There's no comments from fire?

01:33:10.280 --> 01:33:12.300
 No, sir.

01:33:12.300 --> 01:33:14.760
 Are there additional comments?

01:33:14.760 --> 01:33:15.260
 No.

01:33:15.260 --> 01:33:16.220
 No, sir.

01:33:16.220 --> 01:33:17.260
 Okay.

01:33:19.320 --> 01:33:20.440
 Commissioners, questions?

01:33:20.440 --> 01:33:27.260
 Okay.

01:33:27.260 --> 01:33:31.800
 Let's kind of walk the line on this one here a little bit.

01:33:31.800 --> 01:33:38.440
 John, let me ask a question.

01:33:38.440 --> 01:33:44.120
 Is this our discussion or are we still involving the appellants?

01:33:47.880 --> 01:33:49.000
 John?

01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:58.280
 Well, the opposition has raised a good point that I think we need to consider.

01:33:58.280 --> 01:34:03.960
 May I suggest, commissioners, that we confirm whether the appellant

01:34:03.960 --> 01:34:09.240
 is still appealing this question or has he withdrew his appeal?

01:34:09.240 --> 01:34:12.040
 No, I'm still appealing the question.

01:34:12.040 --> 01:34:13.320
 I have not withdrawn my appeal.

01:34:13.320 --> 01:34:14.860
 Okay.

01:34:14.860 --> 01:34:17.640
 I'm just wanting to clarify that.

01:34:18.280 --> 01:34:25.160
 I think, and I cause that because if he withdraws it, then we don't discuss it at all.

01:34:25.160 --> 01:34:32.040
 So he has to read it in and ask to be considered in order for the appeal to happen.

01:34:32.040 --> 01:34:35.160
 So, is that right?

01:34:35.160 --> 01:34:36.840
 If we withdraw it.

01:34:36.840 --> 01:34:39.720
 That is correct.

01:34:39.720 --> 01:34:44.360
 And the reason we're asking that question is because I understand that the department has already

01:34:45.400 --> 01:34:52.200
 accepted, you know, his appeal or his request to appeal and accepted what he recommended.

01:34:52.200 --> 01:34:57.800
 But if he still obviously is going forth with the appeal,

01:34:57.800 --> 01:35:03.240
 even though the department has already accepted it, then please move forward, commissioners.

01:35:03.240 --> 01:35:06.760
 So, I guess I'm confused.

01:35:06.760 --> 01:35:11.560
 So, since they accepted my appeal, am I now appealing against it?

01:35:11.560 --> 01:35:13.000
 Is that what you're saying?

01:35:13.000 --> 01:35:14.680
 Against them accepting my appeal?

01:35:15.800 --> 01:35:17.160
 No, she's not.

01:35:17.160 --> 01:35:18.680
 I'm speaking for you, Stephanie.

01:35:18.680 --> 01:35:19.320
 You can jump in.

01:35:19.320 --> 01:35:25.320
 In order for this appeal to go forward, the commission has to vote.

01:35:25.320 --> 01:35:27.240
 Okay.

01:35:27.240 --> 01:35:33.080
 And so, now it's on the table for us to discuss

01:35:33.080 --> 01:35:40.840
 whether to accept what the fire said or what you said or what Mr. Roberts said.

01:35:40.840 --> 01:35:43.320
 I mean, that's our job at this point.

01:35:43.320 --> 01:35:43.880
 Okay.

01:35:43.880 --> 01:35:47.000
 But it had to come on to the table before we could have that discussion.

01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:48.200
 I understand.

01:35:48.200 --> 01:35:49.000
 Thank you.

01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:53.000
 Is that correct from my legal friends over here?

01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:55.560
 Yes, this is my chronic.

01:35:55.560 --> 01:35:59.880
 You don't have to accept the department's supporting the appeal.

01:35:59.880 --> 01:36:01.560
 Yeah, that's up to you folks.

01:36:01.560 --> 01:36:02.280
 Right.

01:36:02.280 --> 01:36:02.600
 Okay.

01:36:02.600 --> 01:36:04.760
 Now, discussion.

01:36:04.760 --> 01:36:07.320
 I want to go back to the point of order, though.

01:36:07.320 --> 01:36:11.240
 Like, Commissioner Baines, I agree with you.

01:36:11.240 --> 01:36:12.840
 We need to have some discussion.

01:36:12.840 --> 01:36:19.320
 I guess what I want to understand is, is it more appropriate for us to make a motion either to

01:36:19.320 --> 01:36:25.320
 accept the appeal, which is also the shared recommendation of the department,

01:36:25.320 --> 01:36:29.400
 first, and then for us to debate amongst ourselves what we should do?

01:36:29.400 --> 01:36:33.880
 Or is it appropriate for us to entertain the discussion

01:36:33.880 --> 01:36:38.760
 that Mr. Baines has encouraged and I think is right based on the comments we've heard

01:36:38.760 --> 01:36:41.400
 now and then to make our motion?

01:36:41.400 --> 01:36:42.200
 Does that make sense?

01:36:43.160 --> 01:36:45.720
 What I'm asking, what I need to clarify.

01:36:45.720 --> 01:36:52.520
 Jamie, we can go either way because if we decide we don't want, we make a motion,

01:36:52.520 --> 01:36:57.160
 we can vote it down and have another motion.

01:36:57.160 --> 01:37:04.200
 Yeah, I think the appeal is already properly before you since you didn't withdraw it.

01:37:04.200 --> 01:37:09.640
 So I think you folks just decide whether to grant it or sustain it or grant it.

01:37:09.640 --> 01:37:10.520
 Right.

01:37:11.400 --> 01:37:15.480
 But our discussion can happen after a motion and we can defeat our motion

01:37:15.480 --> 01:37:19.560
 and make another motion if we so choose.

01:37:19.560 --> 01:37:23.320
 I'm just trying to keep up with you too.

01:37:23.320 --> 01:37:24.280
 That's what I'm trying to do.

01:37:24.280 --> 01:37:35.800
 So Robert's rules would say we need a motion on the floor in order to have a discussion.

01:37:38.440 --> 01:37:43.080
 I move that we accept the appeal based on the recommendation of the fire department.

01:37:43.080 --> 01:37:51.800
 May I offer a friendly amendment to say that we accept C and D as correct answers?

01:37:51.800 --> 01:38:00.360
 I agree with your amendment and I want to include it in my motion.

01:38:00.360 --> 01:38:02.680
 Okay, that's clarified then.

01:38:02.680 --> 01:38:06.600
 I'll second that for the sake of discussion.

01:38:08.120 --> 01:38:09.240
 So let's talk about it.

01:38:09.240 --> 01:38:23.720
 Okay, now in the fire department answer, it said it used an adjective, "joist girders,"

01:38:23.720 --> 01:38:28.760
 where the answer is actually a girder.

01:38:28.760 --> 01:38:36.360
 So I was wondering if we could kind of go back to the book and satisfy ourselves that

01:38:37.480 --> 01:38:42.360
 we are speaking of the same thing and we're not speaking different things.

01:38:42.360 --> 01:38:50.760
 So I'll go to the department to help me do that.

01:38:50.760 --> 01:38:51.400
 Please, Michael.

01:38:51.400 --> 01:38:53.000
 Yes, sir.

01:38:53.000 --> 01:39:06.440
 So I guess to speak on what Mr. Johnson and what those speaking against the appeal said.

01:39:07.400 --> 01:39:14.040
 So the question and the answer, as I've stated on all the previous appeals,

01:39:14.040 --> 01:39:17.880
 it is in fact word for word out of the book.

01:39:17.880 --> 01:39:20.600
 The book states, "Beam is a structural member

01:39:20.600 --> 01:39:23.560
 that carries loads perpendicular to its longitudinal dimension."

01:39:23.560 --> 01:39:25.720
 That's on page 79.

01:39:29.560 --> 01:39:38.840
 Mr. Johnson's appeal, which references a girder, that is on page 248.

01:39:38.840 --> 01:39:47.560
 And the two that spoke against the appeal, they have a valid point.

01:39:47.560 --> 01:39:50.040
 It doesn't just say "girder."

01:39:50.040 --> 01:39:54.920
 It says a "joist girder," both in the text and under the picture.

01:39:55.960 --> 01:40:03.320
 So if you want to be specific regarding terms, "girder" is generic.

01:40:03.320 --> 01:40:08.440
 The book refers specifically to a "joist girder,"

01:40:08.440 --> 01:40:10.840
 which can be used in place of a heavy steel beam.

01:40:10.840 --> 01:40:21.400
 So, Mike, I have a clarifying question, please.

01:40:21.400 --> 01:40:22.440
 Yes, ma'am.

01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:28.760
 Remember when we took the SAT 100 years ago and there were those analogy questions,

01:40:28.760 --> 01:40:32.920
 like beam is to girder and girder is to beam and all that stuff?

01:40:32.920 --> 01:40:35.640
 You remember like way back in the 10th grade?

01:40:35.640 --> 01:40:42.840
 So what, because I work at a nonprofit and I studied journalism, so I like words,

01:40:42.840 --> 01:40:48.520
 but I don't know anything about construction or structural engineering of any kind, okay?

01:40:49.160 --> 01:40:57.480
 So is a joist girder a type of, I would assume,

01:40:57.480 --> 01:40:59.960
 is a type of girder and there are other types, right?

01:40:59.960 --> 01:41:01.800
 Yes, ma'am.

01:41:01.800 --> 01:41:09.720
 And then a beam, which is the other answer that we accepted, would a girder be,

01:41:09.720 --> 01:41:13.880
 and I think if I understood Mr. Johnson correctly,

01:41:13.880 --> 01:41:16.680
 a girder is a specific type of beam.

01:41:16.680 --> 01:41:18.120
 Would that be correct as well?

01:41:19.160 --> 01:41:20.680
 Yes.

01:41:20.680 --> 01:41:32.440
 Okay, so for me, if they're true synonyms, right?

01:41:32.440 --> 01:41:38.440
 A joist girder is just a type of girder, but a beam and a girder are synonyms.

01:41:38.440 --> 01:41:39.720
 Is that true or not?

01:41:39.720 --> 01:41:46.360
 They may be used in the same instance, yes.

01:41:48.840 --> 01:41:51.080
 Like you could replace one with the other.

01:41:51.080 --> 01:41:54.200
 Girder and a beam?

01:41:54.200 --> 01:41:56.440
 Yeah.

01:41:56.440 --> 01:42:01.000
 Well, if I were giving you my opinion, then it would be my opinion.

01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:07.800
 If we go out of the book, the only time it references a girder is

01:42:07.800 --> 01:42:12.840
 on page 248 when it discusses the joist girder.

01:42:15.480 --> 01:42:19.640
 But if I was to look up what it says right here,

01:42:19.640 --> 01:42:25.000
 can be used to take the place of a steel beam, right?

01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:28.920
 So it's essentially a type of beam replacement.

01:42:28.920 --> 01:42:34.680
 But I totally understand where the other two gentlemen are coming from too,

01:42:34.680 --> 01:42:37.640
 that we were hardliners in the other situation.

01:42:37.640 --> 01:42:44.040
 To me, this just seems like a synonym issue.

01:42:45.480 --> 01:42:55.080
 When you look at the glossary in the back of the same book,

01:42:55.080 --> 01:43:01.560
 there is no entry for girder.

01:43:01.560 --> 01:43:08.120
 There is in the index, but they do talk about beams,

01:43:08.120 --> 01:43:12.600
 which led me to believe that they were synonymous.

01:43:15.960 --> 01:43:23.960
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:43:23.960 --> 01:43:33.960
 Other discussion?

01:43:33.960 --> 01:43:41.960
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:43:41.960 --> 01:43:44.360
 My heart bleeds too much, Mr. Chair.

01:43:44.360 --> 01:43:46.760
 So I have difficulty in that regard.

01:43:46.760 --> 01:43:49.800
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:43:49.800 --> 01:43:51.080
 I'm a bleeding heart.

01:43:51.080 --> 01:43:51.800
 Do you get that?

01:43:51.800 --> 01:43:52.600
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:43:52.600 --> 01:43:53.640
 I get it, I get it.

01:43:53.640 --> 01:43:57.160
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:43:57.160 --> 01:43:58.680
 We'll stop and render aid.

01:43:58.680 --> 01:43:59.640
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:43:59.640 --> 01:44:01.320
 No, that was another question.

01:44:01.320 --> 01:44:02.280
 Sorry, bad joke.

01:44:02.280 --> 01:44:02.920
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:02.920 --> 01:44:03.720
 I apologize.

01:44:03.720 --> 01:44:06.560
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:06.560 --> 01:44:08.200
 >> Where's Stephanie when I need her?

01:44:08.200 --> 01:44:09.160
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:09.160 --> 01:44:11.480
 She should be shaking her head at you too also.

01:44:11.480 --> 01:44:13.800
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:13.800 --> 01:44:20.840
 Well, Mr. Chair, it does specifically say under beams, it gives a synonym as girder.

01:44:20.840 --> 01:44:24.680
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:24.680 --> 01:44:29.320
 >> I think that just means that what I moved, we should do.

01:44:29.320 --> 01:44:30.280
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:30.280 --> 01:44:36.120
 >> Yeah, so Jamie, you wanna make a motion on this one?

01:44:36.120 --> 01:44:38.360
 >> The motion's already on the floor.

01:44:38.360 --> 01:44:39.000
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:41.160
 >> Okay, so we just need to take a vote then, huh?

01:44:41.160 --> 01:44:49.160
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:49.160 --> 01:44:56.040
 All right, motion on the floor is to accept answers C and D.

01:44:56.040 --> 01:44:57.480
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:44:57.480 --> 01:44:58.760
 All in favor, say aye.

01:44:58.760 --> 01:45:00.680
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:00.680 --> 01:45:01.240
 Aye.

01:45:01.240 --> 01:45:02.760
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:02.760 --> 01:45:03.400
 Opposed?

01:45:03.400 --> 01:45:07.720
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:07.720 --> 01:45:08.360
 Abstain?

01:45:08.360 --> 01:45:11.480
 [LAUGH]

01:45:11.480 --> 01:45:13.560
 Okay, John, did you vote affirmative?

01:45:13.560 --> 01:45:17.240
 >> I voted in favor of accepting C and D.

01:45:17.240 --> 01:45:19.560
 >> Okay, I didn't hear you, so okay.

01:45:19.560 --> 01:45:21.640
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:21.640 --> 01:45:23.160
 So we accept C and D.

01:45:23.160 --> 01:45:24.360
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:24.360 --> 01:45:25.240
 >> Thank you, commissioners.

01:45:25.240 --> 01:45:28.440
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:28.440 --> 01:45:31.320
 >> Yeah, next is 91.

01:45:31.320 --> 01:45:35.480
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:35.480 --> 01:45:43.400
 And let's see, there's only one, so Matt, you're on.

01:45:43.400 --> 01:45:49.160
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:49.160 --> 01:45:52.440
 >> Given recent developments, I'd like to withdraw that appeal, please.

01:45:52.440 --> 01:45:57.320
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:45:57.320 --> 01:45:57.880
 >> Positive?

01:45:57.880 --> 01:46:00.680
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:46:00.680 --> 01:46:01.240
 >> Yes, sir.

01:46:01.240 --> 01:46:09.480
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:46:09.480 --> 01:46:14.520
 >> Okay, 97, Mr. Johnson.

01:46:14.520 --> 01:46:17.320
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:46:17.320 --> 01:46:19.000
 >> All right, I'm here.

01:46:19.000 --> 01:46:20.200
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:46:20.200 --> 01:46:23.080
 So I guess I'll read my appeal again and then we'll go from there.

01:46:23.080 --> 01:46:24.040
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:46:24.040 --> 01:46:28.440
 So I feel that answer A is also a correct answer to this question due to the fact that

01:46:28.440 --> 01:46:33.880
 the keyed answer B, crisis, and the answer that I selected, A, adversity,

01:46:33.880 --> 01:46:37.640
 are used interchangeably in the reference source material when dealing with the

01:46:37.640 --> 01:46:39.720
 concept of revealing character.

01:46:39.720 --> 01:46:44.440
 This can be evidenced on pages 235 and 236 in the book,

01:46:44.440 --> 01:46:47.240
 the same place where the keyed answer comes from.

01:46:47.240 --> 01:46:51.080
 The terms crisis and adversity are mentioned the same number of times

01:46:51.080 --> 01:46:53.400
 in this section while talking about this topic.

01:46:53.400 --> 01:46:57.640
 For this reason, I chose answer A as both answers A and B are correct.

01:46:57.640 --> 01:46:59.160
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:46:59.160 --> 01:47:06.520
 And I would like to add as well that last year, this question was on the driver's exam.

01:47:06.520 --> 01:47:07.880
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:47:07.880 --> 01:47:11.640
 And so basically between last year and this year, they flipped two of the books.

01:47:11.640 --> 01:47:13.480
 This book was on the drivers last year.

01:47:13.480 --> 01:47:15.560
 This year, it's on the captains and they took one of ours and

01:47:15.560 --> 01:47:17.080
 put it on the driver's test this year.

01:47:17.080 --> 01:47:17.640
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:47:17.640 --> 01:47:19.960
 And last year, this appeal came up.

01:47:19.960 --> 01:47:24.600
 Six candidates appealed this last year for the same exact reason I appealed it.

01:47:24.600 --> 01:47:29.640
 And it was an accepted appeal to where they took two answers.

01:47:29.640 --> 01:47:31.880
 One of the answer being the one that I selected this year.

01:47:31.880 --> 01:47:36.520
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:47:36.520 --> 01:47:39.400
 >> Okay, questions?

01:47:39.400 --> 01:47:42.520
 Questions of the appellant?

01:47:42.520 --> 01:47:49.240
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:47:49.240 --> 01:47:50.120
 Five response.

01:47:50.120 --> 01:47:57.240
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:47:57.240 --> 01:47:58.200
 John, do you have a question?

01:47:58.200 --> 01:47:58.760
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:47:58.760 --> 01:48:02.360
 >> We're gonna, I do, but I'm gonna let the fire response.

01:48:02.360 --> 01:48:02.840
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:02.840 --> 01:48:04.600
 >> Okay, fire response.

01:48:04.600 --> 01:48:05.960
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:05.960 --> 01:48:08.360
 >> The department's recommendation is to sustain the key.

01:48:08.360 --> 01:48:09.560
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:09.560 --> 01:48:11.960
 The question and answer are word for word from the book.

01:48:11.960 --> 01:48:13.080
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:13.080 --> 01:48:19.640
 The appeal states that adversity is used interchangeably with crisis when dealing

01:48:20.360 --> 01:48:22.360
 with the concept of revealing character.

01:48:22.360 --> 01:48:23.640
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:23.640 --> 01:48:27.560
 The book refers to adversity when leading a team and when faced with making high

01:48:27.560 --> 01:48:28.440
 pressure decisions.

01:48:28.440 --> 01:48:29.240
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:29.240 --> 01:48:32.680
 Additionally, adversity is described as a problem or

01:48:32.680 --> 01:48:35.800
 opportunity that may be faced by you or your team.

01:48:35.800 --> 01:48:37.160
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:37.160 --> 01:48:42.280
 The book refers to crisis as a big problem that once people are able to overcome,

01:48:42.280 --> 01:48:45.160
 will gain the confidence, ability, and mindset to do it again.

01:48:45.160 --> 01:48:46.840
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:46.840 --> 01:48:50.680
 >> Answer B is the one best answer.

01:48:50.680 --> 01:48:54.680
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:54.680 --> 01:48:56.920
 >> I did have a question of Mr. Johnson, please.

01:48:56.920 --> 01:48:57.480
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:57.480 --> 01:48:57.960
 >> Yes, sir.

01:48:57.960 --> 01:48:58.840
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:48:58.840 --> 01:49:07.960
 >> Mr. Johnson, can you give me the context where you're drawing the use of the synonym,

01:49:07.960 --> 01:49:08.440
 as you said?

01:49:08.440 --> 01:49:10.280
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:49:10.280 --> 01:49:17.480
 >> Yes, sir, it talks about on the page 235, the top there right up under problems or

01:49:17.480 --> 01:49:22.760
 opportunities, the first sentence, it's every adversity you and your team will

01:49:22.760 --> 01:49:25.480
 encounter is either a problem or an opportunity.

01:49:25.480 --> 01:49:26.520
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:49:26.520 --> 01:49:32.440
 And then it goes on to list adversity one other time and I'll try to find out exactly

01:49:32.440 --> 01:49:33.960
 where that is.

01:49:33.960 --> 01:49:35.240
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:49:35.240 --> 01:49:39.640
 But it's in that same paragraph that the crisis is from.

01:49:39.640 --> 01:49:49.640
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:49:49.640 --> 01:49:55.080
 >> Other questions?

01:49:55.080 --> 01:49:56.840
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:49:56.840 --> 01:49:58.840
 >> My question is for you, Mike.

01:49:58.840 --> 01:50:03.960
 In regards to the comment that Mr. Johnson made in his appeal,

01:50:03.960 --> 01:50:08.760
 that this same question was on the driver's test and was accepted at that time.

01:50:08.760 --> 01:50:11.000
 Can you confirm that information?

01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:12.120
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:50:12.120 --> 01:50:13.560
 >> Yes, ma'am, that is a fact.

01:50:13.560 --> 01:50:14.680
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:50:14.680 --> 01:50:21.160
 I did not realize that prior to compiling the department's responses.

01:50:21.160 --> 01:50:22.440
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:50:22.440 --> 01:50:29.320
 I did review last year's appeals and it was in fact an appeal last year.

01:50:29.320 --> 01:50:30.840
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:50:30.840 --> 01:50:37.320
 >> So I'm a little curious why then you would not change the department's response to

01:50:37.320 --> 01:50:39.000
 accept it in this case as well?

01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:41.880
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:50:41.880 --> 01:50:50.920
 >> So the appeals are reviewed by three chief officers, and we take the responses from those,

01:50:50.920 --> 01:50:57.240
 the majority of the responses from those, and that's what creates the department response.

01:50:57.240 --> 01:50:58.440
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:50:58.440 --> 01:51:07.080
 So this year when this appeal was reviewed, the reasoning that I put in the department's

01:51:07.080 --> 01:51:10.360
 response, those were the comments that I got back.

01:51:10.360 --> 01:51:12.760
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:51:12.760 --> 01:51:18.200
 >> Yeah, and I'm not sure- >> I'm not trying to be hard about it,

01:51:18.200 --> 01:51:24.120
 but there's not a process where you go by reviewing past appeals or whatnot as

01:51:24.120 --> 01:51:25.800
 part of the process beforehand?

01:51:25.800 --> 01:51:28.440
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:51:28.440 --> 01:51:35.480
 >> Yeah, this is Mike, I'm not even really sure that what was done in the past necessarily is

01:51:36.680 --> 01:51:42.680
 relevant cuz different people may have made different arguments and we don't know exactly

01:51:42.680 --> 01:51:44.520
 what the commissioner said.

01:51:44.520 --> 01:51:49.240
 So I'm really not sure the propriety of saying just because it was ruled one way

01:51:49.240 --> 01:51:52.520
 before should really have any bearing on what you folks do.

01:51:52.520 --> 01:51:53.720
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:51:53.720 --> 01:51:56.760
 If you think it's relevant, you wanna consider it, but again,

01:51:56.760 --> 01:52:01.960
 we don't know what the arguments were last time, so I don't think that should necessarily be

01:52:01.960 --> 01:52:02.600
 controlling.

01:52:02.600 --> 01:52:03.960
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:52:03.960 --> 01:52:10.040
 >> But to be clear, I'm not that Mr. Johnson necessarily did this, but we could go back to

01:52:10.040 --> 01:52:12.440
 the public record and review that, right?

01:52:12.440 --> 01:52:14.520
 >> I actually have- >> I don't have a plan for us to do that.

01:52:14.520 --> 01:52:19.400
 I don't want Commissioner Baines and Commissioner Ramsey to think I'm gonna be looking at that

01:52:19.400 --> 01:52:23.400
 record or whatnot, but just to be clear, that is something we could do, correct?

01:52:23.400 --> 01:52:25.880
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:52:25.880 --> 01:52:32.600
 >> Again, I don't know what was done a year ago really is relevant or even admissible.

01:52:33.560 --> 01:52:34.760
 Again, it's a different test.

01:52:34.760 --> 01:52:39.000
 You're looking at it, this test in this time under these circumstances,

01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:44.680
 not what happened a year ago on a different test with different appellants.

01:52:44.680 --> 01:52:45.880
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:52:45.880 --> 01:52:49.000
 So I mean, ultimately, I think it's up to the commission to make a decision if you

01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:50.440
 wanna give that any weight.

01:52:50.440 --> 01:52:54.520
 But I just have some concerns about considering something from a prior appeal.

01:52:54.520 --> 01:52:56.440
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:52:56.440 --> 01:52:57.480
 >> Commissioners, could I say?

01:52:57.480 --> 01:53:00.760
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:53:00.760 --> 01:53:01.480
 >> Go ahead, Greg.

01:53:01.480 --> 01:53:06.760
 >> I just wanna say that I did go back and I pulled all the appeals from last year.

01:53:06.760 --> 01:53:09.480
 So I have all six candidates from last year and

01:53:09.480 --> 01:53:12.440
 there are appeals here who filled the question.

01:53:12.440 --> 01:53:15.800
 And I also have the department's response printed out.

01:53:15.800 --> 01:53:20.120
 And the department's response was, and I can read it.

01:53:20.120 --> 01:53:23.400
 It says that reasoning except A and B.

01:53:23.400 --> 01:53:26.200
 The entire section is referring to adversity and

01:53:26.200 --> 01:53:28.680
 the crisis quote is embedded in this section.

01:53:28.680 --> 01:53:32.520
 The reader can come to the conclusion that crisis means the same as adversity

01:53:32.520 --> 01:53:33.240
 in this section.

01:53:33.240 --> 01:53:39.000
 So my question is, if we're going to appeal it and overturn it and

01:53:39.000 --> 01:53:43.320
 accept multiple answers one year, why then would we go back the next year and

01:53:43.320 --> 01:53:46.600
 not accept that when the same question has been appealed and

01:53:46.600 --> 01:53:49.880
 the test taker has the same problem with it that occurred last year?

01:53:49.880 --> 01:53:55.000
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

01:53:55.000 --> 01:54:01.320
 >> Well, I agree with Mr. Cronick in that it's a different time.

01:54:01.320 --> 01:54:03.320
 It's a different panel.

01:54:03.320 --> 01:54:08.360
 I think that the fire department should have done that.

01:54:08.360 --> 01:54:13.400
 Cuz hopefully the fire department looks at all of the appeals and says,

01:54:13.400 --> 01:54:19.640
 is there a problem with the question that causes this to be an appealed answer?

01:54:22.280 --> 01:54:28.440
 But we do have to understand it's a different set of people taking the test.

01:54:28.440 --> 01:54:38.920
 It's a different set of people who are, excuse me, I'm running out of battery.

01:54:38.920 --> 01:54:47.560
 The different people taking the test, I mean there are different eyes looking at

01:54:47.560 --> 01:54:52.360
 it, looking at it differently, and that in and of itself could cause an issue.

01:54:52.360 --> 01:54:56.360
 But again, I think the fire department should have, should catch that one.

01:54:56.360 --> 01:55:02.040
 I know that I'm gonna skip something right now, but frankly, when I read the section,

01:55:02.040 --> 01:55:09.960
 it kept talking about adversity and then down there it says crisis is.

01:55:10.600 --> 01:55:17.960
 So I don't think this discussion about what happened last year,

01:55:17.960 --> 01:55:20.120
 it's not making an influence on me.

01:55:20.120 --> 01:55:29.400
 I looked at the book and I personally agree with the appeal based on that,

01:55:29.400 --> 01:55:32.680
 not based on something I didn't even know ahead of time.

01:55:33.640 --> 01:55:42.920
 So again, and that's just me and my opinion, and you come to this with an opinion waiting

01:55:42.920 --> 01:55:44.440
 to be swayed in a different way.

01:55:44.440 --> 01:55:54.040
 And so I think this is probably a moot point as far as what happened last year.

01:55:54.040 --> 01:55:57.080
 Not for you, Mike, it's not a moot point for you.

01:55:57.080 --> 01:56:02.680
 But us as a commission, I think it's a moot point.

01:56:02.680 --> 01:56:06.200
 I think we look at it this year with our sets of eyes and

01:56:06.200 --> 01:56:09.480
 under our circumstances this year and go with it.

01:56:09.480 --> 01:56:14.120
 Are you making a motion then?

01:56:14.120 --> 01:56:19.240
 Well, let me ask a question that I skipped.

01:56:19.240 --> 01:56:22.440
 Does anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:56:22.440 --> 01:56:24.280
 Yes, sir.

01:56:24.280 --> 01:56:27.000
 Okay, go ahead, Matt.

01:56:28.040 --> 01:56:35.160
 Again, it's puzzling to me how we're able to deduce information based off feelings

01:56:35.160 --> 01:56:42.520
 for certain questions, but we're hard set on questions being directly worded word

01:56:42.520 --> 01:56:43.480
 for word from the book.

01:56:43.480 --> 01:56:50.680
 It's puzzling to me and I would encourage you to please accept the key answer

01:56:50.680 --> 01:56:52.840
 and inside along with the department's answer.

01:56:52.840 --> 01:56:53.800
 Thank you.

01:56:58.280 --> 01:56:58.780
 Okay.

01:56:58.780 --> 01:57:04.360
 And commission, I did found that other area where it referenced adversity.

01:57:04.360 --> 01:57:07.800
 Right above where it says crisis on 236.

01:57:07.800 --> 01:57:10.520
 Just above that, it says when it comes to leading a team,

01:57:10.520 --> 01:57:18.280
 great things often follow adversity, which is synonym for crisis.

01:57:18.280 --> 01:57:22.540
 Okay.

01:57:26.600 --> 01:57:28.200
 I'd like to make a motion.

01:57:28.200 --> 01:57:28.700
 Thank you.

01:57:28.700 --> 01:57:33.640
 I would like to make a motion that we accept the appeal

01:57:33.640 --> 01:57:42.680
 and that both answers A and B, adversity and crisis be acceptable for question 97.

01:57:42.680 --> 01:57:45.640
 I'll second that.

01:57:45.640 --> 01:57:51.960
 Now we can discuss our discussion place now, right?

01:57:51.960 --> 01:57:52.460
 Yes.

01:57:53.320 --> 01:57:59.960
 So I was prepared to feel this way before Mr. Johnson shared his additional information.

01:57:59.960 --> 01:58:04.920
 I will say that the reason I asked the questions about it is because it frustrates me

01:58:04.920 --> 01:58:09.560
 because I feel like the department should have done their due diligence here

01:58:09.560 --> 01:58:14.600
 and maybe reviewed the question before putting it on the other test.

01:58:16.920 --> 01:58:24.280
 And so to me, the additional information is for me, another nail in my solidifying my opinion

01:58:24.280 --> 01:58:28.920
 because we could have saved some time and some energy.

01:58:28.920 --> 01:58:32.220
 Yep.

01:58:32.220 --> 01:58:38.680
 John, do you have discussion?

01:58:38.680 --> 01:58:40.600
 I have no discussion.

01:58:40.600 --> 01:58:43.100
 All right.

01:58:43.880 --> 01:58:50.760
 Motion is to accept A and B as answers to question 97.

01:58:50.760 --> 01:58:52.760
 All in favor, say aye.

01:58:52.760 --> 01:58:54.700
 Aye.

01:58:54.700 --> 01:58:56.520
 I'll say no.

01:58:56.520 --> 01:58:57.900
 Opposed?

01:58:57.900 --> 01:58:58.700
 No.

01:58:58.700 --> 01:59:07.500
 Okay.

01:59:07.500 --> 01:59:09.660
 Thank you.

01:59:12.680 --> 01:59:14.040
 I'm going to take just a second.

01:59:14.040 --> 01:59:20.520
 That way, if the captain candidates want to go to dinner, they can.

01:59:20.520 --> 01:59:27.160
 But I want to, again, I say this all the time and I'm sorry, get used to it.

01:59:27.160 --> 01:59:29.320
 Then you'll hear it many times.

01:59:29.320 --> 01:59:37.000
 You may not be happy with our decisions.

01:59:38.440 --> 01:59:43.800
 And I'm sorry, but I hope you felt like you got a chance to say what you needed to say.

01:59:43.800 --> 01:59:49.480
 But most of all, as we've kind of referred to earlier, guys,

01:59:49.480 --> 01:59:56.120
 that you take the time to study all of these books.

01:59:56.120 --> 02:00:07.160
 You take the energy and the initiative and the choice to take the test over and over

02:00:07.160 --> 02:00:10.520
 and over again, if you do, or if this is your first time.

02:00:10.520 --> 02:00:19.160
 We appreciate the fact that you are trying to make yourself and our department and our city

02:00:19.160 --> 02:00:24.280
 a better place by your increased knowledge and education.

02:00:24.280 --> 02:00:32.040
 It's you do things that most of us wouldn't do.

02:00:32.040 --> 02:00:35.640
 You run in where we're running out.

02:00:36.840 --> 02:00:39.480
 And we applaud you for that.

02:00:39.480 --> 02:00:40.760
 We thank you for that.

02:00:40.760 --> 02:00:52.280
 And I encourage you to continue to grow in your education and in your service to our community.

02:00:52.280 --> 02:00:56.840
 So thank you for all you do every day for all of us.

02:00:59.640 --> 02:01:08.120
 Okay, next item on the agenda is the driver appeals.

02:01:08.120 --> 02:01:11.240
 Mr. Chairman, can I advocate for a 10-minute break?

02:01:11.240 --> 02:01:14.280
 10 minutes?

02:01:14.280 --> 02:01:19.880
 I need to make myself a cup of coffee.

02:01:19.880 --> 02:01:21.560
 I need to make myself a cup of coffee.

02:01:21.560 --> 02:01:25.880
 Let's go with five and see what happens.

02:01:25.880 --> 02:01:27.320
 Okay, all right.

02:01:27.320 --> 02:01:27.800
 Thank you.

02:01:27.800 --> 02:01:28.440
 We'll do five.

02:01:28.440 --> 02:01:29.320
 We'll be back in a minute.

02:01:29.640 --> 02:01:31.880
 We'll suspend for five minutes.

02:01:31.880 --> 02:01:32.280
 Thank you.

02:01:32.280 --> 02:01:34.040
 At about 540.

02:01:34.040 --> 02:01:35.720
 All right, thank you.

02:01:35.720 --> 02:01:46.120
 Okay, meeting of the Civil Service Commission at 540.

02:01:46.120 --> 02:01:53.240
 First appeal for the driver's exam is Cody Kessler.

02:01:55.720 --> 02:02:01.080
 Mr. I'll make this pretty short after reading it and hearing the captain's appeals.

02:02:01.080 --> 02:02:03.560
 It is word for word out of the book, a section of it.

02:02:03.560 --> 02:02:07.880
 I guess I just disagree that the definition of tandem pumping

02:02:07.880 --> 02:02:14.760
 is in the book is a form of relay pumping which is used to boost pressures.

02:02:14.760 --> 02:02:20.200
 It says, you know, it's needed when a pressure is higher than a single engine is capable of supplying

02:02:20.200 --> 02:02:26.920
 where to me the way the question read, I pick none of the above because that

02:02:26.920 --> 02:02:28.600
 is what relay pumping is in the book.

02:02:28.600 --> 02:02:33.400
 It's used when pumping water from a discharge to an intake of other engine or engines

02:02:33.400 --> 02:02:35.480
 to send water down a line.

02:02:35.480 --> 02:02:39.640
 Like I said, I'll let y'all do the interpretation.

02:02:39.640 --> 02:02:40.760
 I don't have much argument on it.

02:02:40.760 --> 02:02:44.760
 It's just not the definition that the initial definition that tandem pumping was.

02:02:49.480 --> 02:02:53.480
 Okay. Questions of the appellant?

02:02:53.480 --> 02:03:01.240
 I have no questions of the appellant at this time.

02:03:01.240 --> 02:03:04.440
 Our response.

02:03:04.440 --> 02:03:09.480
 The department recommendation is to sustain the key.

02:03:09.480 --> 02:03:12.840
 The question and answer a word for word from the book.

02:03:12.840 --> 02:03:15.560
 Answer B is the one best answer.

02:03:17.000 --> 02:03:22.840
 I had stated on my response that the appeal that the definition is from the book

02:03:22.840 --> 02:03:26.440
 kind of to speak what Cody just said.

02:03:26.440 --> 02:03:31.240
 I don't consider the question a definition.

02:03:31.240 --> 02:03:39.160
 I consider the question a kind of an explanation of how tandem pumping works.

02:03:39.160 --> 02:03:48.200
 So that will be my input. Questions of fire?

02:03:48.200 --> 02:04:00.280
 Hearing none, anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:04:00.280 --> 02:04:08.360
 Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

02:04:10.120 --> 02:04:12.040
 On question 23.

02:04:12.040 --> 02:04:24.120
 I will move that we sustain the answer choice B on question 23.

02:04:24.120 --> 02:04:28.280
 Okay, I'll second it.

02:04:28.280 --> 02:04:34.200
 Discussion on the commission?

02:04:37.640 --> 02:04:42.680
 Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining the key to 23, say aye.

02:04:42.680 --> 02:04:44.220
 Aye.

02:04:44.220 --> 02:04:45.660
 Aye.

02:04:45.660 --> 02:04:46.780
 Aye.

02:04:46.780 --> 02:04:49.720
 Okay, motion carries.

02:04:49.720 --> 02:04:56.520
 Next is Brandon Hillis.

02:04:56.520 --> 02:05:04.360
 Question 29, also from pumping an aerial apparatus.

02:05:08.120 --> 02:05:12.040
 I'm here just a second.

02:05:12.040 --> 02:05:16.920
 Okay, I don't know your name, so.

02:05:16.920 --> 02:05:24.840
 I would like to withdraw my appeal on question 29.

02:05:24.840 --> 02:05:29.100
 Okay.

02:05:29.100 --> 02:05:31.080
 There's also word for word from the book.

02:05:38.360 --> 02:05:42.040
 All right, thank you, sir.

02:05:42.040 --> 02:05:51.880
 The next appeal is question 48.

02:05:51.880 --> 02:05:57.000
 Brian Gilmore.

02:05:57.000 --> 02:06:04.680
 And he's not with us, so I will read it into

02:06:06.840 --> 02:06:07.720
 into the record.

02:06:07.720 --> 02:06:15.800
 Question says fire door closers are not used on which type of fire door?

02:06:15.800 --> 02:06:21.160
 A, rolling, B, swinging, C, sliding, D, any of the above.

02:06:21.160 --> 02:06:24.920
 The keyed answer is rolling.

02:06:24.920 --> 02:06:34.680
 Answer A. Mr. Gilmore says that there is no true correct answer.

02:06:35.480 --> 02:06:39.880
 The question asks, the answer is rolling.

02:06:39.880 --> 02:06:42.920
 Rolling doors use a fusible link.

02:06:42.920 --> 02:06:48.600
 A fusible link is still a type of door closer for a fire door,

02:06:48.600 --> 02:06:54.360
 and generally is incorporated on doors that only close during a fire event.

02:07:00.440 --> 02:07:06.840
 So don't ask me any questions, I'm not the expert,

02:07:06.840 --> 02:07:11.240
 but we will go with the fire response to the appeal.

02:07:11.240 --> 02:07:16.360
 The department's recommendation is to sustain the key.

02:07:16.360 --> 02:07:24.600
 The book states door closers can be used with sliding or swinging fire doors.

02:07:24.600 --> 02:07:27.560
 That's the first paragraph on page 160.

02:07:29.640 --> 02:07:35.080
 So the best answer is A, rolling doors, because that is not listed.

02:07:35.080 --> 02:07:41.080
 Stated in the appeal states that a fusible link is a type of door closer.

02:07:41.080 --> 02:07:43.080
 A fusible link is not a door closer.

02:07:43.080 --> 02:07:48.280
 A fusible link, this is a quote from the book.

02:07:48.280 --> 02:07:53.960
 Under fire conditions, a fusible link disconnects the door from the operator,

02:07:54.520 --> 02:08:00.120
 and allows the door to close using a spring-powered door closer or a system of suspended weights.

02:08:00.120 --> 02:08:06.120
 So the fusible link disconnects from the door from whatever is holding it open.

02:08:06.120 --> 02:08:11.960
 The door is closed, according to the book,

02:08:11.960 --> 02:08:16.360
 using a spring-powered door closer or a system of suspended weights.

02:08:16.360 --> 02:08:22.440
 So the department's recommendation is to sustain the key.

02:08:24.120 --> 02:08:25.800
 Okay, any questions of fire?

02:08:25.800 --> 02:08:32.120
 I have no questions of fire.

02:08:32.120 --> 02:08:37.000
 And you said the gentleman's not here with us, right?

02:08:37.000 --> 02:08:38.060
 Right.

02:08:38.060 --> 02:08:41.240
 Okay, the only question I had for Mr. Gilmore was

02:08:41.240 --> 02:08:49.160
 when I read the material, I did not see where he was referencing his answer.

02:08:49.160 --> 02:08:52.760
 So if he were here, that would be the only question I would have.

02:08:53.480 --> 02:09:03.720
 I did see the answers for the two types of doors that you can use door closers with,

02:09:03.720 --> 02:09:09.320
 and then the answer was which one can you not use door closers with.

02:09:09.320 --> 02:09:11.640
 And I didn't see any justification for his answer.

02:09:11.640 --> 02:09:14.440
 I was looking to hear his response.

02:09:14.440 --> 02:09:20.680
 I would like to speak in opposition to the appeal.

02:09:23.480 --> 02:09:31.000
 Hearing none, I would entertain a motion from the commission.

02:09:31.000 --> 02:09:34.760
 So moved that we can sustain the key.

02:09:34.760 --> 02:09:37.660
 Second.

02:09:37.660 --> 02:09:40.200
 Discussion?

02:09:40.200 --> 02:09:48.920
 Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining the key on question 48, say aye.

02:09:48.920 --> 02:09:50.300
 Aye.

02:09:50.300 --> 02:09:51.580
 Aye.

02:09:53.240 --> 02:09:55.320
 Okay, motion carries.

02:09:55.320 --> 02:10:02.920
 Question 70, and there are actually three appellants.

02:10:02.920 --> 02:10:06.520
 Two are here, one is not.

02:10:06.520 --> 02:10:14.520
 I will try to, I'll read his appeal into the record even if it does duplicate.

02:10:14.520 --> 02:10:19.720
 So let's see, who's first?

02:10:19.720 --> 02:10:20.440
 Mr. Hillis.

02:10:24.040 --> 02:10:31.160
 Yes, the question is, never make roof ventilation holes where they will cut off your means of escape.

02:10:31.160 --> 02:10:34.040
 What's the following statement most correct?

02:10:34.040 --> 02:10:41.560
 The answer is C, which is always have a second way off the roof besides your opening.

02:10:41.560 --> 02:10:45.160
 Nowhere in the book does it state using the opening

02:10:45.160 --> 02:10:49.880
 as a egress and never has it ever been taught in the fire.

02:10:49.880 --> 02:10:54.040
 Would you ever use the hole you just cut as a means of egress?

02:10:54.040 --> 02:10:55.480
 So I think that is a bad question.

02:10:55.480 --> 02:11:00.840
 I picked as the most correct would be A,

02:11:00.840 --> 02:11:05.320
 which states always make a roof cut with your back to the edge of a roof.

02:11:05.320 --> 02:11:10.360
 The reason I chose that would be the second means of egress

02:11:10.360 --> 02:11:13.240
 could be a ladder thrown to the edge of the roof behind you.

02:11:13.240 --> 02:11:19.560
 So I think C is incorrect because you would never use the hole as a means of egress.

02:11:19.880 --> 02:11:28.840
 Okay, thank you, sir.

02:11:28.840 --> 02:11:32.440
 Mr. Kessler.

02:11:32.440 --> 02:11:35.800
 I agree with Mr. Hillis.

02:11:35.800 --> 02:11:38.280
 That's the caption in the book in that picture.

02:11:38.280 --> 02:11:42.600
 It does state, you know, you always need to have a second means of egress, but

02:11:42.600 --> 02:11:47.800
 in the fire service, we would never use the opening that we just cut as a means of egress.

02:11:47.800 --> 02:11:50.600
 That doesn't seem very smart.

02:11:50.600 --> 02:11:54.040
 If the question was, if the answer was worded differently,

02:11:54.040 --> 02:11:58.760
 I could see where it's come, but it's the being worded the way it is.

02:11:58.760 --> 02:12:00.120
 Answer C is not correct.

02:12:00.120 --> 02:12:10.440
 Okay, Mr. Davis is a PO.

02:12:10.440 --> 02:12:14.920
 Mr. Kessler, what was your, what was your answer?

02:12:17.160 --> 02:12:17.880
 Let's see here.

02:12:17.880 --> 02:12:21.240
 I believe I chose A as well.

02:12:21.240 --> 02:12:24.440
 Keep your back to the edge of the roof.

02:12:24.440 --> 02:12:25.640
 That is the most correct.

02:12:25.640 --> 02:12:32.680
 And that's also what you selected, correct, Mr. Hillis?

02:12:32.680 --> 02:12:36.600
 That's correct.

02:12:36.600 --> 02:12:40.360
 All clear with choosing A.

02:12:40.360 --> 02:12:41.400
 Thank you.

02:12:42.040 --> 02:12:47.800
 Actually, Cody, you said that the answer choice is worded wrong.

02:12:47.800 --> 02:12:50.440
 You said other.

02:12:50.440 --> 02:12:57.160
 You didn't give us an alternative, but just for the record.

02:12:57.160 --> 02:12:58.120
 Yes, sir.

02:12:58.120 --> 02:13:00.280
 No, this is my first appeals process.

02:13:00.280 --> 02:13:01.240
 So I'm learning here.

02:13:01.240 --> 02:13:02.920
 I didn't know about all this.

02:13:02.920 --> 02:13:04.920
 My excuse, too.

02:13:07.640 --> 02:13:18.040
 Mr Davis' appeal says that I would, it's 251 states that quote,

02:13:18.040 --> 02:13:24.200
 I would never place a hole where it might interfere with our intended route of egress.

02:13:24.200 --> 02:13:24.680
 End quote.

02:13:24.680 --> 02:13:27.560
 Answer A states that very thing.

02:13:27.560 --> 02:13:34.840
 The answer is wrong because the question asked for the most correct quote, end of quote answer.

02:13:35.400 --> 02:13:46.280
 DfD would not make a vent hole with, yeah, with the hole being one of our means of escape.

02:13:46.280 --> 02:13:55.560
 So his was that it should, his appeal says that it should be A rather than C.

02:14:02.440 --> 02:14:06.520
 So yeah, any questions?

02:14:06.520 --> 02:14:09.800
 Other questions for the two appellants that are here to answer questions?

02:14:09.800 --> 02:14:12.840
 I did have a question.

02:14:12.840 --> 02:14:19.080
 I wanted to find out where in the reading did you draw your answer from?

02:14:19.080 --> 02:14:24.360
 This is Cody.

02:14:24.360 --> 02:14:25.160
 I can go first.

02:14:25.160 --> 02:14:30.200
 Honestly, on that question, I couldn't find when I was reading those, the answer choices,

02:14:30.200 --> 02:14:34.920
 they, that was the most correct, not because it was in the book, but because that was,

02:14:34.920 --> 02:14:38.520
 out of all the answer choices, that's the only thing that made sense.

02:14:38.520 --> 02:14:46.120
 Like I said, the key word on that was the, you know, when you're reading the question,

02:14:46.120 --> 02:14:51.000
 the answer choices, B says always make a roof cut with your opening between you and the outside

02:14:51.000 --> 02:14:51.480
 of the wall.

02:14:51.480 --> 02:14:52.440
 We would never do that.

02:14:52.440 --> 02:14:59.000
 And this, the tactics book that this is in is a lot of common sense material for the fire service.

02:15:00.680 --> 02:15:06.120
 Answer C, which is what we're appealing, says always have a second way off besides your opening.

02:15:06.120 --> 02:15:09.480
 It's very vague to all of us.

02:15:09.480 --> 02:15:12.360
 It's saying the opening is in the hole you're cutting because you're talking about cutting

02:15:12.360 --> 02:15:16.920
 the hole on a flat roof and then never place yourself on a flat roof for the purpose

02:15:16.920 --> 02:15:18.680
 of opening a roof.

02:15:18.680 --> 02:15:21.320
 That does specifically say that in the material, I believe.

02:15:21.320 --> 02:15:22.680
 I don't know where at.

02:15:22.680 --> 02:15:33.080
 So that was where, so that was where I came up with A as the most correct.

02:15:33.080 --> 02:15:37.080
 I couldn't remember if I read that in the source material, but that was what made the

02:15:37.080 --> 02:15:37.960
 most sense to me.

02:15:37.960 --> 02:15:45.640
 But on that page cited, the picture caption at the top of the page, it does say always

02:15:45.640 --> 02:15:49.400
 have a second means of egress, but it does not say use your opening.

02:15:52.440 --> 02:15:56.760
 So that's where I just believe the question, the answer choice is worded very poorly.

02:15:56.760 --> 02:16:00.920
 Okay, thank you.

02:16:00.920 --> 02:16:04.200
 Mr. Hillis, do you have anything?

02:16:04.200 --> 02:16:07.400
 Nothing further to add.

02:16:07.400 --> 02:16:07.900
 Okay.

02:16:07.900 --> 02:16:12.040
 Fire response.

02:16:12.040 --> 02:16:16.360
 The department's recommendation is to sustain the key.

02:16:16.360 --> 02:16:19.240
 The most correct answer is C.

02:16:19.800 --> 02:16:23.800
 The book emphasizes the importance of having a second way off of a flat roof.

02:16:23.800 --> 02:16:30.520
 First, on page 250 in the last paragraph, the book states, be sure you have at least

02:16:30.520 --> 02:16:31.640
 two ways off each roof.

02:16:31.640 --> 02:16:39.400
 Second, on page 251 under figure 925 at the top, always have a second way off a roof.

02:16:39.400 --> 02:16:45.960
 Two of the three appeals state that A is the correct answer.

02:16:45.960 --> 02:16:49.000
 Answer A is not stated in the book.

02:16:50.600 --> 02:16:54.600
 Answer B is in the book, which is something you never want to do.

02:16:54.600 --> 02:17:02.280
 And answer D is just a distractor.

02:17:02.280 --> 02:17:05.000
 If you didn't place yourself on the roof, then you wouldn't be opening it.

02:17:05.000 --> 02:17:10.040
 So C is the one best answer.

02:17:10.040 --> 02:17:11.740
 Thank you.

02:17:11.740 --> 02:17:16.440
 Questions of fire.

02:17:19.960 --> 02:17:25.400
 I would like to know the selection breakdown of this question as well.

02:17:25.400 --> 02:17:29.320
 So we have two of three that chose A.

02:17:29.320 --> 02:17:32.440
 I'm curious how many folks took the test and what did they choose?

02:17:32.440 --> 02:17:37.240
 23 people took the test.

02:17:37.240 --> 02:17:39.640
 13 people chose C.

02:17:39.640 --> 02:17:42.040
 Nine people chose A.

02:17:42.040 --> 02:17:43.320
 One person chose B.

02:17:50.760 --> 02:17:56.600
 My question is a little more general, and it gets at what I think the appellants are after.

02:17:56.600 --> 02:18:09.320
 So does this book count the vent opening as one of the ways off a flat roof?

02:18:09.320 --> 02:18:11.340
 Really?

02:18:11.340 --> 02:18:16.600
 That's a good question.

02:18:16.600 --> 02:18:21.240
 I mean, the second part of that question I could not find in the book.

02:18:21.240 --> 02:18:22.360
 So I don't know.

02:18:22.360 --> 02:18:26.200
 I mean, they're right.

02:18:26.200 --> 02:18:27.160
 The appellants are right.

02:18:27.160 --> 02:18:30.760
 Your opening is not one of the ways off the roof.

02:18:30.760 --> 02:18:32.520
 I get that.

02:18:32.520 --> 02:18:38.360
 So that's a legitimate question.

02:18:38.360 --> 02:18:43.960
 I mean, that's not stated in the book, but it is referenced in the question.

02:18:47.560 --> 02:18:52.440
 Mr. Commissioner, if I may add to that, I think that's kind of where we were appealing.

02:18:52.440 --> 02:18:53.880
 The first part of that question is correct.

02:18:53.880 --> 02:18:55.480
 You always want a second way off.

02:18:55.480 --> 02:18:58.200
 It was the end of the question that makes it not correct.

02:18:58.200 --> 02:19:10.840
 But even if they say a second way off the roof, they're counting it, I guess, as one of the ways.

02:19:10.840 --> 02:19:16.920
 So then the second part of the question really is valid, because it says besides your opening,

02:19:16.920 --> 02:19:24.440
 the book appears to be counting that as one of them.

02:19:24.440 --> 02:19:31.480
 It's kind of weird, but do you see where I'm going?

02:19:31.480 --> 02:19:32.120
 Am I wrong?

02:19:32.120 --> 02:19:33.960
 Yeah, I don't know.

02:19:33.960 --> 02:19:39.880
 I think that was the kicker, is no one would ever use the opening they made to go off a roof.

02:19:40.840 --> 02:19:44.680
 That's really the question.

02:19:44.680 --> 02:19:50.280
 You think that, okay, you have two ways off the roof besides the vent hole you just made.

02:19:50.280 --> 02:19:52.680
 Correct.

02:19:52.680 --> 02:19:55.880
 So the book does talk about you always want to have two ladders.

02:19:55.880 --> 02:19:59.640
 You set two aerial ladders to get off a book or to get off a roof.

02:19:59.640 --> 02:20:04.120
 That way you always have a second means of egress.

02:20:04.120 --> 02:20:05.960
 You typically on different sides of the building.

02:20:06.920 --> 02:20:11.960
 So like I said, not arguing, you always want to have a second means of egress,

02:20:11.960 --> 02:20:15.320
 but the book doesn't say that an opening would be one of them.

02:20:15.320 --> 02:20:17.960
 To me, that's what makes that answer choice wrong.

02:20:17.960 --> 02:20:24.600
 Any other questions?

02:20:24.600 --> 02:20:32.200
 Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:20:37.240 --> 02:20:44.520
 Okay, commissioners, I would entertain a motion.

02:20:44.520 --> 02:20:51.480
 I would like to move that we accept these three appeals

02:20:51.480 --> 02:20:57.480
 and that answer A and C be acceptable on the test.

02:21:00.120 --> 02:21:07.400
 I'll second.

02:21:07.400 --> 02:21:12.040
 Yes, let's kind of go through that number A.

02:21:12.040 --> 02:21:14.840
 Help me.

02:21:14.840 --> 02:21:18.200
 I might be the slowest one in the bunch, so I need some help.

02:21:18.200 --> 02:21:27.160
 It says here, always make the roof cut with your back to the edge of a flat roof.

02:21:29.960 --> 02:21:30.680
 What does that mean?

02:21:30.680 --> 02:21:38.840
 With your back to the edge of a flat roof.

02:21:38.840 --> 02:21:43.480
 Who are you asking, commissioner?

02:21:43.480 --> 02:21:48.600
 Well, we've got nine people, right, that answered number A,

02:21:48.600 --> 02:21:53.160
 and we have two of them here, and we have the department.

02:21:53.160 --> 02:21:59.640
 I'd like to hear how this is a possibility or not a possibility.

02:21:59.640 --> 02:22:00.680
 I'd love to hear from you, Mike.

02:22:00.680 --> 02:22:06.440
 I would like to hear how it is a possibility as well.

02:22:06.440 --> 02:22:12.840
 When you're cutting a hole in the roof, obviously you're cutting a square or rectangle,

02:22:12.840 --> 02:22:16.520
 so you're going to be moving around that hole while you're cutting.

02:22:16.520 --> 02:22:23.560
 So standing in one place or constantly having your back to one edge,

02:22:24.600 --> 02:22:29.800
 I mean, I've never heard of that being a tactic that we follow.

02:22:29.800 --> 02:22:37.880
 And as I stated, answer A is not addressed in the book.

02:22:37.880 --> 02:22:46.040
 Well, that was kind of my idea, is that I couldn't visualize it.

02:22:46.040 --> 02:22:49.880
 With your back to the roof, what does that mean?

02:22:49.880 --> 02:22:52.360
 The edge of the roof.

02:22:53.320 --> 02:22:55.960
 Yeah, you're back. What does that mean? You're back to the edge.

02:22:55.960 --> 02:23:09.720
 Here's where I'm struggling, is that when you said, Mike, that you generally agree that the,

02:23:09.720 --> 02:23:15.000
 like, I don't remember exactly how you said it, right, but you said that the appellants make a

02:23:15.000 --> 02:23:21.240
 good point about the two parts of the question and how taken separately they kind of make sense,

02:23:21.240 --> 02:23:28.520
 but together they don't. If it was up to me, maybe this motion is available to me,

02:23:28.520 --> 02:23:34.040
 and I'm just new here and didn't know, but if it was up to me, I would have thrown the question

02:23:34.040 --> 02:23:43.800
 out altogether because you had so many folks that made both those choices. So in my opinion,

02:23:43.800 --> 02:23:51.320
 this is just a not great question, and I don't want to penalize people for your agreement that

02:23:51.320 --> 02:23:57.160
 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

02:23:57.160 --> 02:24:05.240
 situation because even in the response, it says, you know, you give two page references. On page

02:24:05.240 --> 02:24:10.920
 50, it talks about a second way off. Even your appellants agreed you want a second way off.

02:24:10.920 --> 02:24:15.320
 They just don't want it to be the hole they just cut, which they said is part of their appeal.

02:24:15.320 --> 02:24:23.320
 And then on 251, where you reference the diagram, again, we want two ways. We just don't want the

02:24:23.320 --> 02:24:28.680
 hole, and I think that was the point that Commissioner Ramsey was making as well. I just

02:24:28.680 --> 02:24:34.760
 think it's written very poorly overall, and I tried to pick a motion that I thought would

02:24:35.560 --> 02:24:42.680
 help me to help them, you know, but I, you know, I don't know what to do. I feel at a loss because

02:24:42.680 --> 02:24:53.240
 I feel like there's no winning here. When I look back at answer A, the only thing I came up with

02:24:53.240 --> 02:25:03.160
 was that it's a way off the roof that doesn't involve the vent hole at all, and keep you back

02:25:03.160 --> 02:25:10.440
 to the edge means that you're keeping that vent hole in front of you. And so I thought that C is

02:25:10.440 --> 02:25:17.320
 still a better way to say it, although I'm not sure about the opening. Jamie, just for a point of

02:25:17.320 --> 02:25:26.440
 clarification, we typically, we try our best not to throw a question out unless it just is

02:25:27.480 --> 02:25:36.600
 really, really bad because that affects every question on every test from that point on.

02:25:36.600 --> 02:25:44.920
 Crystal explained that part to me, which is why I made the motion that I did, but you had nine

02:25:44.920 --> 02:25:55.800
 folks out of 13, right? Nine out of 24. Nine out of 24. Nine out of 24, which is still, I don't know.

02:25:57.800 --> 02:26:05.960
 But yeah, that's also, I mean, I haven't said this before today. That probably is not an issue

02:26:05.960 --> 02:26:16.840
 that should be a deciding factor for us. How many people got the question right or wrong?

02:26:16.840 --> 02:26:23.880
 That probably isn't really a good issue for us to be dealing with. I want to go,

02:26:25.000 --> 02:26:30.280
 but I don't think that's an issue that, because a different set of people would have a whole

02:26:30.280 --> 02:26:37.320
 different set of results. So I don't think that's the issue at this particular point.

02:26:37.320 --> 02:26:45.320
 That's where I struggle is our appellants here today, and even in the answer of the

02:26:45.320 --> 02:26:54.360
 third gentleman, pretty much acknowledged they knew D was wrong and they knew B was wrong.

02:26:55.480 --> 02:27:01.000
 But because of the way the question was worded, they didn't really feel like they could choose

02:27:01.000 --> 02:27:07.800
 C safely. So they just went with the other one, thinking, well, maybe I didn't read something

02:27:07.800 --> 02:27:12.600
 correctly. And I have a real hard time too, because we have been pretty sticklers here today

02:27:12.600 --> 02:27:20.520
 about what's in the book and what's not in the book. But the point about the ventilation holes,

02:27:20.520 --> 02:27:25.160
 I mean, I read this part five times in preparation for this meeting, trying to figure it out,

02:27:25.160 --> 02:27:40.200
 and I couldn't figure it out. For me, if I'm trying to cut a hole in the roof with my back,

02:27:43.240 --> 02:27:53.240
 you know, I'm just trying to visualize a flat roof. And then I want to be close to the edge,

02:27:53.240 --> 02:27:59.720
 but not that close, you know. And so you're basically, you're going to have to make a square,

02:27:59.720 --> 02:28:07.320
 I'm thinking, or a circle that you have to make it where you're going to, it's going to be a

02:28:07.320 --> 02:28:15.080
 it's going to be a little awkward. So to me, that was a difficult one. Of course, B and D

02:28:15.080 --> 02:28:22.920
 were not really answers. So for me, my deductive reasoning said it was C,

02:28:22.920 --> 02:28:29.880
 but I wanted to hear why people chose A. I wanted to hear that. What was the motivation for that?

02:28:33.560 --> 02:28:40.120
 Well, since it's us in discussion, I mean, I think the best solution to this

02:28:40.120 --> 02:28:54.840
 is to approve the motion for A and accept A and C, rather than just C. And then, Mike, make note.

02:28:54.840 --> 02:28:57.720
 Yes, sir.

02:28:57.720 --> 02:29:04.760
 Next time. So that's, I mean, I think that's the best solution at this point,

02:29:04.760 --> 02:29:08.760
 to remove confusion and then fix it.

02:29:08.760 --> 02:29:11.320
 Yes, sir.

02:29:11.320 --> 02:29:12.760
 Henceforth, so.

02:29:12.760 --> 02:29:17.560
 We need to actually vote, right?

02:29:17.560 --> 02:29:19.160
 Do what?

02:29:19.160 --> 02:29:24.040
 We haven't actually voted yet. You can't tell them what to do until after we vote.

02:29:26.200 --> 02:29:31.880
 Well, I think I know where we're going. Any other discussion?

02:29:31.880 --> 02:29:34.360
 Call the question.

02:29:34.360 --> 02:29:39.000
 Motion is to accept A and C. All in favor say aye.

02:29:39.000 --> 02:29:40.840
 Aye.

02:29:40.840 --> 02:29:45.800
 I'm waiting for John.

02:29:45.800 --> 02:29:49.240
 I'm only going to accept C.

02:29:56.920 --> 02:29:58.520
 Thank you guys very much.

02:29:58.520 --> 02:30:03.160
 So John, you're actually voting no on this motion.

02:30:03.160 --> 02:30:08.360
 Just to make sure, for clarification purposes, you're voting no on.

02:30:08.360 --> 02:30:09.320
 I'm voting no.

02:30:09.320 --> 02:30:10.040
 I'm voting no.

02:30:10.040 --> 02:30:14.440
 I'm going to vote no as well.

02:30:14.440 --> 02:30:15.400
 Okay.

02:30:15.400 --> 02:30:23.880
 And I would then, then I would accept, I would entertain the motion.

02:30:25.240 --> 02:30:26.280
 Entertain a motion.

02:30:26.280 --> 02:30:29.160
 I'll vote to sustain the key.

02:30:29.160 --> 02:30:33.000
 Second.

02:30:33.000 --> 02:30:43.000
 I'll ask the question simply because Mr. Robert Summer would not be like it if I

02:30:43.000 --> 02:30:44.440
 didn't ask it. Any discussion?

02:30:44.440 --> 02:30:47.720
 No discussion.

02:30:47.720 --> 02:30:49.080
 For me.

02:30:49.080 --> 02:30:52.840
 All in favor of the motion to sustain the key, say aye.

02:30:52.840 --> 02:30:54.220
 Aye.

02:30:55.240 --> 02:30:55.740
 Aye.

02:30:55.740 --> 02:30:57.500
 No.

02:30:57.500 --> 02:30:58.780
 No.

02:30:58.780 --> 02:31:03.880
 Motion carries.

02:31:03.880 --> 02:31:13.400
 Next is question 95.

02:31:13.400 --> 02:31:22.280
 And Jason, you're on finally.

02:31:26.040 --> 02:31:33.160
 So, so the question 95 comes from page 171 in extreme ownership.

02:31:33.160 --> 02:31:37.000
 It's the very last sentence of the first complete paragraph.

02:31:37.000 --> 02:31:43.960
 To quote the book, it says frontline leaders must also have trust and confidence in their

02:31:43.960 --> 02:31:47.560
 senior leaders to know that they are empowered to make decisions.

02:31:47.560 --> 02:31:51.240
 So the test leaves out the word also.

02:31:52.600 --> 02:31:58.040
 So if you're going based on the quote from the book, the word says also, or the, excuse

02:31:58.040 --> 02:32:06.760
 me, the sentence says also, also indicates two, which tells me two answers.

02:32:06.760 --> 02:32:14.040
 So that's why I appealed and that's why I think both A and D are correct answers

02:32:14.040 --> 02:32:21.720
 because it says senior leaders and their subordinates many times in the book.

02:32:23.240 --> 02:32:24.040
 Okay.

02:32:24.040 --> 02:32:25.000
 Thank you, sir.

02:32:25.000 --> 02:32:26.200
 Brandon.

02:32:26.200 --> 02:32:34.920
 That is the basis of my appeal is the word also earlier in the same paragraph.

02:32:34.920 --> 02:32:39.720
 It speaks of the junior leaders throughout the book, junior leaders and subordinates

02:32:39.720 --> 02:32:40.920
 are used interchangeably.

02:32:40.920 --> 02:32:46.440
 I have a couple examples on page 31.

02:32:47.560 --> 02:32:56.440
 The term, just out of two sentences, it says a leader does not take credit for his or her

02:32:56.440 --> 02:33:01.240
 team's success, but bestows that honor upon his subordinate leaders and team members.

02:33:01.240 --> 02:33:08.440
 When a leader sets an example and expects this from his junior leaders within the team,

02:33:08.440 --> 02:33:10.920
 the mind sets to the team's culture at every level.

02:33:10.920 --> 02:33:16.200
 It's just one example and there are a couple others where subordinates and junior leaders

02:33:16.200 --> 02:33:18.040
 are used interchangeably.

02:33:18.040 --> 02:33:25.480
 And then back to the page 171 in the same paragraph, it starts out with where the leaders

02:33:25.480 --> 02:33:28.600
 must place full faith and trust in their junior leaders.

02:33:28.600 --> 02:33:34.920
 Then it goes on to say also in their senior leaders indicating the two answers of A and D.

02:33:42.360 --> 02:33:51.720
 The department recommendation is to accept the appeal and accept both A and D as correct

02:33:51.720 --> 02:33:52.200
 answers.

02:33:52.200 --> 02:33:57.560
 The book states that frontline leaders must have faith and trust in junior leaders as

02:33:57.560 --> 02:34:01.480
 well as stating frontline leaders must have trust and confidence in their senior leaders.

02:34:01.480 --> 02:34:09.640
 Now, I guess the question for you is, are junior leaders, is the term junior leader

02:34:09.640 --> 02:34:13.480
 and the answer of their subordinates the same thing?

02:34:13.480 --> 02:34:15.560
 I don't know.

02:34:15.560 --> 02:34:16.360
 Maybe, maybe not.

02:34:16.360 --> 02:34:26.200
 I did identify this question as a previously used question, which was confusing.

02:34:26.200 --> 02:34:32.760
 So the department's recommendation is to accept A and D.

02:34:37.000 --> 02:34:40.840
 Okay, questions?

02:34:40.840 --> 02:34:42.040
 Mr. Ramsey, this is Cody.

02:34:42.040 --> 02:34:43.000
 I would like to pose.

02:34:43.000 --> 02:34:45.080
 Okay, I was coming next.

02:34:45.080 --> 02:34:46.360
 Okay, sorry.

02:34:46.360 --> 02:34:48.280
 I know when you're ready.

02:34:48.280 --> 02:34:50.760
 Go ahead.

02:34:50.760 --> 02:34:55.960
 Okay, in that paragraph that they're talking about, I see where they're talking about the

02:34:55.960 --> 02:35:01.480
 keyword also, but in that paragraph, it never mentions subordinates.

02:35:01.480 --> 02:35:02.840
 It just mentions junior leaders.

02:35:03.480 --> 02:35:07.720
 It also just says that they must have trust in junior leaders wherein the question, the

02:35:07.720 --> 02:35:12.840
 key word is confidence, trust and confidence, which is senior leaders in that paragraph.

02:35:12.840 --> 02:35:14.040
 It's word for word in the book.

02:35:14.040 --> 02:35:16.600
 I know we've done a lot of that today.

02:35:16.600 --> 02:35:21.480
 You know, it's off keywords.

02:35:21.480 --> 02:35:22.280
 One is trust.

02:35:22.280 --> 02:35:23.240
 One is confidence.

02:35:23.240 --> 02:35:27.880
 Nowhere does it say confidence in junior leaders, confidence in subordinates,

02:35:27.880 --> 02:35:30.200
 confidences in your senior leaders.

02:35:33.000 --> 02:35:34.360
 Okay, thank you, Cody.

02:35:34.360 --> 02:35:37.400
 Finally speak also.

02:35:37.400 --> 02:35:43.720
 It is not exactly word for word since they do leave out the word also,

02:35:43.720 --> 02:35:46.920
 which indicates the two answers.

02:35:46.920 --> 02:35:48.280
 That's it.

02:35:48.280 --> 02:35:52.440
 It's almost more word for word, leaving out one, two word.

02:35:52.440 --> 02:35:59.240
 Okay, commissioners, questions?

02:36:03.000 --> 02:36:04.360
 No, I'd entertain a motion.

02:36:04.360 --> 02:36:14.200
 I make the motion that we sustain the key of accepting both answers.

02:36:14.200 --> 02:36:18.200
 That's

02:36:18.200 --> 02:36:22.200
 I'm sorry.

02:36:22.200 --> 02:36:27.320
 Sustain the key means that it would be D only.

02:36:28.280 --> 02:36:35.240
 If you accept A and D, then make that motion.

02:36:35.240 --> 02:36:39.640
 Well, I thought that there was a change made

02:36:39.640 --> 02:36:45.080
 on that page where it says department response was accept.

02:36:45.080 --> 02:36:47.080
 But we have to approve.

02:36:47.080 --> 02:36:52.840
 So the motion has to be to approve A and D, to accept A and D.

02:36:52.840 --> 02:36:57.880
 Okay, I will amend my motion to say we will accept both A and D.

02:36:57.880 --> 02:36:58.280
 Thank you.

02:36:58.280 --> 02:37:01.560
 It's confusing and it's late.

02:37:01.560 --> 02:37:05.240
 That's why you're the big honcho.

02:37:05.240 --> 02:37:10.040
 Review the vice chair thing.

02:37:10.040 --> 02:37:11.400
 No, no, I'm kidding.

02:37:11.400 --> 02:37:11.800
 I'm kidding.

02:37:11.800 --> 02:37:14.360
 No, we cannot.

02:37:14.360 --> 02:37:17.160
 All right, any discussion?

02:37:17.160 --> 02:37:19.160
 No.

02:37:19.160 --> 02:37:23.960
 All in favor of accepting A and D, say aye.

02:37:23.960 --> 02:37:25.160
 Aye.

02:37:27.400 --> 02:37:28.440
 No opposition.

02:37:28.440 --> 02:37:28.760
 Okay.

02:37:28.760 --> 02:37:37.560
 Again, I won't make it as long, but for you guys that are doing the drivers,

02:37:37.560 --> 02:37:46.440
 same thing I said to the others, that you take the time and the energy to study,

02:37:46.440 --> 02:37:52.680
 to try to make yourself better for all of us is noted and truly appreciated.

02:37:52.680 --> 02:37:55.800
 More so than most people in the city will ever know.

02:37:56.520 --> 02:37:59.240
 And so thank you.

02:37:59.240 --> 02:38:06.360
 Don't let this experience, however you feel about it, deter you from doing it again

02:38:06.360 --> 02:38:11.080
 in a year, whenever the test is given again.

02:38:11.080 --> 02:38:14.840
 But thank you for your service to all of us in the community.

02:38:14.840 --> 02:38:20.360
 I'd also like to say thank you for your diligence, your scholarship,

02:38:20.360 --> 02:38:25.000
 and your hard work to improve yourselves and to improve the community.

02:38:25.000 --> 02:38:26.200
 Thank you very, very much.

02:38:26.520 --> 02:38:30.440
 All right.

02:38:30.440 --> 02:38:32.360
 If I can find my agenda.

02:38:32.360 --> 02:38:33.000
 There it is.

02:38:33.000 --> 02:38:43.480
 Do we need to go back just for to check real quickly with Stephanie or Crystal,

02:38:43.480 --> 02:38:45.960
 just real quickly go down the answers to make sure.

02:38:45.960 --> 02:38:50.200
 We can start with captains if you'd like to.

02:38:50.200 --> 02:38:50.920
 Okay.

02:38:50.920 --> 02:38:53.400
 So question two, we have sustained the answer key.

02:38:54.120 --> 02:38:58.200
 That was a motion by Commissioner Baines and seconded by you, Commissioner Ramsey.

02:38:58.200 --> 02:39:01.560
 Question five is sustain the answer key.

02:39:01.560 --> 02:39:05.320
 It was motioned by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Baines.

02:39:05.320 --> 02:39:08.680
 Question 60, sustain the answer key.

02:39:08.680 --> 02:39:12.200
 Again, motion by Blanton and seconded by Baines.

02:39:12.200 --> 02:39:15.480
 Question 65 was sustain the answer key.

02:39:15.480 --> 02:39:22.600
 And I do have notes from both Commissioner Baines and Blanton about the wording of the question.

02:39:24.440 --> 02:39:26.200
 So that was a sustain the answer key.

02:39:26.200 --> 02:39:30.520
 And Commissioner Baines made the motion with Commissioner Blanton seconding the motion.

02:39:30.520 --> 02:39:36.360
 Question 85 is accept both C as in cat and D as in dog.

02:39:36.360 --> 02:39:41.400
 And that was made by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Commissioner Baines.

02:39:41.400 --> 02:39:45.080
 Question 91, the appellant withdrew their appeal.

02:39:45.080 --> 02:39:50.200
 Question 97, accept both A and B as in boy.

02:39:50.840 --> 02:39:54.360
 That was a motion by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Ramsey.

02:39:54.360 --> 02:39:55.640
 Is that correct?

02:39:55.640 --> 02:39:56.760
 Yes.

02:39:56.760 --> 02:40:01.800
 On the vote, Mr. Baines opposed.

02:40:01.800 --> 02:40:02.840
 Yes, I do have that.

02:40:02.840 --> 02:40:04.760
 I'm sorry, Mr. Baines opposed.

02:40:04.760 --> 02:40:06.680
 Two to one.

02:40:06.680 --> 02:40:07.320
 Okay.

02:40:07.320 --> 02:40:12.920
 And then for driver appeals, we have question number 23 was sustain the answer key.

02:40:12.920 --> 02:40:16.440
 And that was a motion by Commissioner Blanton and seconded by Ramsey.

02:40:16.440 --> 02:40:20.280
 Question 29, the appellant withdrew their appeal.

02:40:20.920 --> 02:40:23.480
 Question 48, sustain the answer key.

02:40:23.480 --> 02:40:27.320
 Motion by Commissioner Baines and seconded by Commissioner Blanton.

02:40:27.320 --> 02:40:32.680
 Question 70, the first motion was to accept both A and C.

02:40:32.680 --> 02:40:34.920
 That did not pass.

02:40:34.920 --> 02:40:36.360
 It was a vote of one to two.

02:40:36.360 --> 02:40:40.040
 The second motion was to sustain the answer key.

02:40:40.040 --> 02:40:44.440
 That was motion by Commissioner Baines and seconded by Blanton.

02:40:44.440 --> 02:40:45.960
 But I had some confusion on that.

02:40:45.960 --> 02:40:47.240
 Was that Commissioner Blanton?

02:40:47.240 --> 02:40:49.080
 Did you second that one?

02:40:51.400 --> 02:40:56.120
 Yes, I made the original motion that I, based on discussion, changed my mind.

02:40:56.120 --> 02:40:57.400
 Okay.

02:40:57.400 --> 02:40:57.720
 All right.

02:40:57.720 --> 02:41:00.520
 And that was a vote from two to one.

02:41:00.520 --> 02:41:03.880
 Commissioner Ramsey opposed it.

02:41:03.880 --> 02:41:08.280
 And then question 95, accept both A and D as in dog.

02:41:08.280 --> 02:41:13.320
 Commissioner Baines made the motion.

02:41:13.320 --> 02:41:16.760
 I think Commissioner Blanton, you made this second as well, correct?

02:41:19.880 --> 02:41:21.480
 Yes, I think so.

02:41:21.480 --> 02:41:21.980
 Okay.

02:41:21.980 --> 02:41:24.040
 And that carried three to zero.

02:41:24.040 --> 02:41:26.700
 All right.

02:41:26.700 --> 02:41:28.360
 Thank you.

02:41:28.360 --> 02:41:30.680
 That was just checking to make sure we got everything.

02:41:30.680 --> 02:41:32.920
 Make sure our records are the same.

02:41:32.920 --> 02:41:41.640
 Next item of business on the agenda is the date of the next Civil Service Commission meeting.

02:41:41.640 --> 02:41:48.120
 So we have reserved the room for April 29th.

02:41:50.040 --> 02:41:52.920
 As we've discussed before, we do have to reserve the room still.

02:41:52.920 --> 02:41:57.640
 I'm not sure when Governor Abbott is going to allow us to meet in person again.

02:41:57.640 --> 02:41:59.720
 So we're still going through the process of

02:41:59.720 --> 02:42:02.200
 reserving the room and having DTV booked and everything.

02:42:02.200 --> 02:42:06.040
 So we are scheduled for April 29th.

02:42:06.040 --> 02:42:12.040
 Since Commissioner Prado Carrillo is not with us right now,

02:42:12.040 --> 02:42:17.000
 if we wanted to look at moving that time up,

02:42:17.000 --> 02:42:20.040
 we could possibly, we could not do that.

02:42:20.040 --> 02:42:20.440
 I'm sorry.

02:42:20.440 --> 02:42:23.560
 There are two, there's another meeting that day as well.

02:42:23.560 --> 02:42:25.000
 So we're booked in the afternoon.

02:42:25.000 --> 02:42:28.780
 Okay.

02:42:28.780 --> 02:42:30.280
 Is that the 3.30 start time?

02:42:30.280 --> 02:42:32.040
 Yes, it is.

02:42:32.040 --> 02:42:37.560
 Is there any urgency?

02:42:37.560 --> 02:42:38.920
 This is a question for Mike.

02:42:38.920 --> 02:42:45.160
 Is there any urgency to the results of the testing?

02:42:47.320 --> 02:42:51.560
 At this point, now that the decisions have been made,

02:42:51.560 --> 02:42:53.000
 is there any urgency?

02:42:53.000 --> 02:42:55.080
 Do we need this before the 29th?

02:42:55.080 --> 02:42:59.080
 No, they can be put placed on the agenda for the 29th.

02:42:59.080 --> 02:43:03.880
 Okay, that's fine because that's probably going to be the main item on the agenda.

02:43:03.880 --> 02:43:10.360
 And if you need it sooner than that, then we could probably move it up

02:43:10.360 --> 02:43:17.880
 because if that's the main item, then it will be dependent on you getting the scores redone

02:43:17.880 --> 02:43:20.440
 because we're approving the eligibility lists.

02:43:20.440 --> 02:43:24.520
 So, but that day works for the fire department.

02:43:24.520 --> 02:43:25.160
 All right.

02:43:25.160 --> 02:43:27.640
 If you don't need it, if there's no urgency there,

02:43:27.640 --> 02:43:36.040
 we'll just go with our normal regularly scheduled times and go forth.

02:43:36.040 --> 02:43:39.160
 So is there anything else for the good of the order?

02:43:40.360 --> 02:43:43.720
 Stephanie?

02:43:43.720 --> 02:43:44.680
 Thank you.

02:43:44.680 --> 02:43:45.080
 Michael?

02:43:45.080 --> 02:43:46.200
 Krista?

02:43:46.200 --> 02:43:47.560
 No?

02:43:47.560 --> 02:43:53.080
 If not, then we'll tell the motion that we adjourn at 6/22.

02:43:53.080 --> 02:43:58.280
 Salute.

02:43:58.280 --> 02:44:02.760
 In a second.

02:44:02.760 --> 02:44:03.960
 Oh, okay.

02:44:03.960 --> 02:44:06.280
 I was afraid I was going to die because it didn't have a second.

02:44:06.280 --> 02:44:11.880
 I feel like you guys have definitely hazed me today, but it's fine.

02:44:11.880 --> 02:44:15.880
 All in favor of adjournment, say aye.

02:44:15.880 --> 02:44:16.840
 Aye.

02:44:16.840 --> 02:44:18.120
 Aye.

02:44:18.120 --> 02:44:19.640
 Meeting's adjourned.

02:44:19.640 --> 02:44:20.360
 Thank you, Jamie.

02:44:20.360 --> 02:44:25.240
 Thank you to our fire department.

02:44:25.240 --> 02:44:26.440
 They do all the real work.

02:44:26.440 --> 02:44:27.480
 We just talk a lot.

02:44:27.480 --> 02:44:33.080
 Thank you, everyone.