May 27, 2020 Civil Service Commission on 2020-05-27 11:30 AM

Good morning. I'd like to call the May 27th meeting of the Civil Service Commission to order at 1145. First order of business is introduction of guests. I think that we determined that there are no guests. The stars of the show are the ones of the others of you that are sitting here. So we'll move on to our next, which is public comments. Again, I don't see anyone. We have no one registered for public comments. So we will move on with that. Next order of business is to consider the minutes of the January 22nd meeting. Commissioners, I would ask you to take a look at those and then entertain them. I would entertain a motion that we approve the minutes of the January 22nd meeting. Don't forget you have to raise your hand first. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I move to approve the minutes. John? I second it. Any in discussion, is there any corrections, amendments, anything? Hearing none, all in favor of approval of the minutes, say aye. Aye. All right. Next order of business is the appeals for the driver exam. So are you going to do, do you have something to say to them first or? Okay. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're glad to have you here today. It's a little different, obviously, for it feels a lot different than it normally does. We have a number of appeals. I want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to express their concerns in the sense of information to provide to us, for us to consider as commissioners. On the other hand, since there are a number of participants, if there is something that's already been said, I would appreciate it. I think the other commissioners also would appreciate your not saying it again. That would include the ones who actually filed the appeals. We want to hear as much new information as we can to make sure that we make the best possible decision for your, for this outcome for you. But as I say, we don't need to do a lot of extra. As I think has been explained, we will have, let you raise your hands and you will be unmuted and give you a chance to speak. The first, so are there any questions on that? Okay. I'll try to make sure I can read all the names off the appeals. We're ready. The first appeal is for question two. We have Mr. Friend and Mr. Punches. I saw Jeremy. There he is. Jeremy? Are you? Can he? Would you unmute Jeremy? Someone unmute Jeremy Punches, please. You're still muted. Yep. There you go now. Now you go. I have nothing further than what's in my appeal that I wrote there. Okay. And Mr. Friend. Okay. Basically and the commissioners have seen these. I assume I should probably read the appeal in. Should I read the appeal? Mr. Punches' appeal or did? Okay. I believe question number two, believe it has multiple correct answers. According to the material in the book, the fire, what is the instrument safety officer is delegated on any working incident, therefore extreme weather, wildland, target hazards all have an ISO. Made a situation like the ISO be ready in place due to the situation we already have required. And that's basically the same. Mr. Punches says A, B, and D are also correct, that all answers are correct. Mr. Friend says that another answer, A, is correct. The question is what scenario listed below would warrant automatic delegation of an incident safety officer, extreme weather, wildland interface fire, firefighter down, missing or injured. And D is target hazards. The correct answer is a firefighter down. And that is in the fire safety officer manual. Mr. Punches, did I do you justice? >> Got it. >> Good. >> Okay. Okay. We are going to ask, remind you to unmute yourself as you speak. Don't everybody speak at once. It gets to be really chaotic. Okay. Okay. You probably didn't hear that. If you'll ask for permission, I will address you to let you speak. So. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Punches at this point? You can shake your head if you'd like or say yes or no. >> I don't have any questions at this time. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Commissioner Carrillo? Okay. Fire response. >> We would like to sustain the key as stated in the reference. Furthermore, page 46, the book clearly has answers A, B, and D as an automatic response for an ISO and not an automatic delegation. The automatic response is defined as the safety officer responding to the incident and available if the incident commander needs them to handle the incident safety officer function at the incident. Automatic delegation is that if the incident safety officer is on scene, then they are automatically delegated to a specific safety function for specific events. >> Commissioners, questions of fire? I have no questions. Thank you. >> I guess I'm trying to understand so if the -- if the ISO is on the scene, then they automatically become delegated to serve a special function? I'm a little -- because I'm trying to read the appeals and I'm trying to read the officer response and then what was in the book. So I guess I'm trying to understand if an ISO is sent to the scene, does that automatically make them the automatically delegated person to deal with whatever emergency is happening? Or can a person -- or can an ISO be sent to the scene and not be put in place as the automatic delegation? >> So the automatic delegation and the firefighter down would say yes, we are creating this position in our incident. This safety officer is automatically getting assigned in our incident. All these other incidents may not require an incident safety officer. >> They could. >> Could. But the only one that would automatically happen is the firefighter down, missing or injured. >> Okay. >> May I enter a check here? >> Yes, sir. >> At the bottom of page 45, there's that section firefighter down, missing or injured. And in that paragraph, it says one main part of the plan should be the immediate appointment of an ISO if not already assigned. So I think the Commissioner Carrillo had asked about -- in one of our previous questions, I thought this was the sentence that answered it for me, is that there needs to be an appointment of an ISO if one is not already assigned. But if one was already assigned, then there wouldn't be a need to assign one. >> When I read that, I also read that as to say that even if there's an ISO on scene doing something else, if there is a manned down situation, they would immediately become that ISO and leave other things to other people until that emergency is cleared. Am I reading too much into that? >> I think that's the basic general idea, yes, that the only thing in that list that automatically is going to get an incident safety officer assigned because of this incident is that situation, the down firefighter was injured. Everything else is at the discretion of the incident commander. >> May I make one last comment, please? >> Yes, sir. >> I would simply like to say to all of the officers here today, I greatly appreciate the scholarship that all of you undertake to go for these promotions. I'm a CPA, and I don't deal with this normally. This is a lot of information, and my hat's off to you for your efforts to digest this. I mean, this is a lot to remember under test situations, and so I applaud all of you. I just wanted to say that I did my best, and if I err, it's because I couldn't grasp everything, but we try our very best to be accurate and not cavalier in answering any of these questions. So I wanted to know both about our respect and that we try very hard to make the right decision. So thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Baines. We certainly agree. That's my speech for the end, but you're right. We're trying our best to help you guys. We know where you are. We follow you guys all the way through the process. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Greg? >> If I may have a moment? >> Yes. >> I would just like to ask the department, in your response to the appeal, you essentially gave a definition for automatic response. An automatic delegation. Was that from the material, or is that something that -- where did that come from? >> I can't answer that. I don't know where that response came from, specifically. The battalion chief who wrote that response is not in the room. >> Okay. There they are. Shay. Unmute yourselves. >> Hello. So I think where the department got their response, if you look on page 43, at the top left side, automatic ISO response. And whenever you look at the question, it has in quotation marks delegation, which is on page 44, on to page 45, where it says firefighter down missing. So the response is A, B, and D, which gets an automatic ISO response. But the delegation goes on to the next page. You see what I'm talking about? And I think that's where the department got their responses, because it says verbatim in the book that A, B, and D are an automatic ISO response and not delegation. So I agree with the department on sustaining the key. >> Thank you. Ms. Hillard, where are you? There you are. Can't find you on the screen. >> Just to continue on with what Shay was saying, page 44, there is automatic ISO delegation, where it specifies the difference in it, and if you are occasionally caught short or worse, the situation has been handled only to have Murphy show up. In this case, it pays to have a predefined set of circumstances that lead to the automatic delegation of the ISO role where one hasn't been made. Having an SOP that tells the IC that he or she shall delegate the safety function to a qualified ISO under certain conditions is what we mean by automatic delegation. >> Any other? Commissioners, I would entertain a motion on question two. >> I motion that we sustain the key. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Question two, to sustain the key. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Sustained the key. Next is item seven. Small -- hang on, small desk, a lot of paper. Where are they? Item seven, we have two appellants, Mr. Jones and Mr. Bentley. Mr. Jones, I see you came into my view first. Would you like to present your appeal, please, sir? >> I don't have much more to add than what was said in the rebuttal by the city. I did have two references that I feel like were correct in that we checked vitals. I have a third reference that was a mistake on all part. >> Okay. And Mr. Bentley? >> Yes, sir. >> Do you have anything? Where are you? >> Right now. >> All right. >> Okay. No, just everything I have in the rebuttal is all I have. >> Okay. They both asked that another answer, i.e., answer D to the question would also be an acceptable answer. Questions of the appellants? I have no questions. >> No questions. >> All right. Fire response. >> We have to sustain the key. The test direction states to pick the best answer. Answer D is an incorrect answer because it states take random vital signs. Vital signs need to be taken on everyone entering rehab, not just at random. Key question is in the text. >> Question of the fire response. >> No questions of fire response. >> No questions. >> Does anyone like to speak in -- against the appeal? Seeing no one. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion on question seven. >> I move to sustain the key. >> I will second that motion. >> Discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of sustaining the key of question seven, say aye. >> Aye. >> Motion carries. Next is question 11. Mr. Bentley and Mr. Jones. >> I have nothing else to add. >> Give us a brief synopsis of what you said. We have it here. Everyone else knows. >> The question was effective incident safety officer understands the relationship of blank to blank. I put environment and exposure. Read my thing right quick. So everything that's on this, equipment safety, building constructions, access, everything pretty much involves our environment and what we're exposed to is kind of where I was leading on to that. So if we don't understand the basics of what we're going against or anything like that to be exposed, what equipment will we need to be safe to? I think it encompasses everything way better. >> Okay. Questions of the appellants? >> I do have a question, please. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, gentlemen. Once again, on page 21, there is a statement underneath station equipment. It's the beginning of the next paragraph. It says the effective ISO understands the relationship of equipment to safety. And that's what I keyed as the reading. I think the other items are important, but that's what I keyed on. And so was there something else that you saw that maybe you thought was a little more of a stronger relationship? >> Yeah. So what I was going with was like so our bunker gear versus it protects us from our heat and everything else. So that's our environment to what we're exposed to. And that's where I was looking at our hazmat suits. They're preventing us from exposures to the environment that we're at any time we go and do a certain task or with anything. Right now, they're doing we wear the mask and everything else for COVID calls and everything like that because it's an exposure in our environment. So I just think it sums up if we don't know what the environment and exposures are we're going into, then we can't really figure out what equipment and safety has to do with that certain task. >> Just to respond to your statement, when you mentioned hazmat or masks, that would be equipment, would it not? >> Yes. >> So when you and kind of going back to that statement, equipment to safety, I think you kind of reinforced that point by your statement about that. You know, in view of the task before you, you always have to make sure you have the right equipment to stay safe in that. >> Yeah, yeah, definitely. But before we go into it, we have to know exactly what environment we're going into. >> I see what you're saying. You have to have kind of an idea, am I going into a smoke field room or am I going into a burning building? >> Yeah, low oxygen. I mean, there's tons of environments that we go into that we've got to figure out what the exposure is because we go in with the wrong equipment and that equipment is worthless to us. >> So and having this conversation, then, so would that statement that's listed here by the department, does that stand where it says understands the relationship of equipment to safety? Do you think that still should be the position of the department or do you think it should differ based on your view? >> My view is A. I see every one of them, but I think A is probably the more beneficial and safety related for us. >> Thank you for your response. >> Mr. Jones, do you have anything to add? >> I have nothing to add. I was coming from the same viewpoint as Craig in relation to environment exposure. >> Just didn't want you to think we forgot the answer. Any other questions of the appellants? Fire response? >> Vote to sustain the key. Information including question and answer comes directly from the text making C the most correct answer. Answer A is not stated in the text and is the opinion of the two appellants should not be considered. >> Questions of fire? >> I did have a question or comment. I don't know which one it is. It's one of them. Let's see. Battalion chief, so in the little dialogue that we had, I could kind of see a little bit of what the gentleman was saying. Would you kind of conclude -- kind of continue that conversation with me a little bit that he and I started? >> I need to measure my words carefully, commissioner. >> Thank you. I'm trying hard to. I want to make sure I give the appellant every benefit of the doubt. That's all I'm trying to do. >> I understand. >> Thank you. >> From the departmental response, I would say the perspective is this. You have to go with the best answer according to the source material. And the source material is clearly stated almost word-for-word. And everything else would just be a matter of opinion at this point. I don't know if that clears it up any more for you, commissioner, or? >> Let me respond in this way. So let's say that the -- and when a test -- when a person is taking a test, in their preparation, are they just given the books or are they given some kind of idea of what to emphasize, what you're looking for, are -- you know, how does that work? How does that work? >> They're given the book, the source material, and they can be tested over anything from the front cover to the back cover. >> I think if I can jump in, I think that's the hard part. Because in reading the second appellant on page 177 and 178, it talks about the environmental integrity, which could either go towards A or it could go towards D, the building construction. And it talks about, you know, it can use the following terminology. Is it stable? Is it not likely to change? So I think whenever we ask firefighters to read this, are we asking them to memorize certain one-liners or are we asking them to read the entire thing and to use their critical thinking skills to be able to apply? And so from what I'm understanding and what I'm hearing, we're asking them to memorize. And so if we're asking them to memorize, then I would sustain the key. But if we're asking them to think critically, then I could see where the argument could be made for some of these other answers. I think for myself, when I'm reading the appeals, I already know what everyone has written on the appeals. But if you can make some other kind of point to explain to us how you arrived at your decision, it would -- for me, at least, it would help me better understand where you're coming from if you say more than just I already know what was on my appeal. At least that would be helpful for me. >> I would be helpful for me as well. Thank you. >> You bring up the question that's been going on for at least 15 years as to whether it's the verbatim out of the book or whether it's the making a decision at the moment. And that's always the difficult part of it. Because the book may not say it exactly like the moment is. And that's always the problem. But I agree with you that, you know, what we're looking for -- we've read your appeals. What we're looking for is additional -- well, thought behind how the appeal happened or additional information. >> I do have to say that because the appellants are asking for A to be the only one that's considered, I think that helps me lead towards just sustaining the key because an equal argument could be made for D in my opinion. If we're going to try to justify that A could be an answer, then also D could be an answer. So for that reason, I kind of lean towards sustaining the key and going verbatim what's in the book. Unless someone can tell me why those two are different. >> Okay. >> Let's save that list. Cassie? >> The only thing that I would have to say against the argument is they're treating environment and exposure almost interchangeably instead of saying there's a relationship between the two. So there is a relationship to understand between equipment and safety kind of as was stated earlier as far as understanding the correct equipment in order to have a proper safety. But to say understand the environment, to understand the exposure, I think is kind of using those two interchangeably because your environment can be an exposure versus there being a relationship between the two. >> I hope that makes sense in what I said. >> Okay. Who else? Greg? Where's Greg? Oh. >> If I may? >> Yes. There you are. >> So when we took this test, it became painfully obvious very early on that this style or theme of test was not necessarily testing comprehension but more essentially like the council member said, the ability to memorize the material. Of the 21 questions that are being appealed today, 17 of them are word for word from the text. And actually nine of the department's responses were it's a direct quote from the text. So knowing that and seeing the test, once you realize that's what they're asking for, you answer accordingly. I may not always agree with that, but that is what the test is looking for. It became very obvious. I would say 90% of the questions on the test were word for word out of the book. So I don't disagree with Mr. Bentley, but it's hard to argue with the fact that it is word for word out of the text. >> Okay. Who else? Mr. Hudson? >> There you are. >> Yes, sir. So I did not write an appeal for this question, but is there any way am I allowed to speak on behalf of Bentley and add to what he has already previously said? >> Yes, as long as it's brief. >> Okay. I believe a lot of the stuff that he's getting comes from chapter nine, which is titled reading firefighters and deals exactly with environment and exposure and the amount of each and how it relies on or relates to everything that ISO would do. And that's where I think he's getting most of that, and I would have to agree with him that question A would also be a possibility. >> Answer A. >> Yes, sir. >> Who is? >> Rhett. >> Can everybody hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> I'm having a hard time trying to access some of the names of the commissioners, but I believe her name was Lillian, was asking about if the department is trying to gear the testes of memorization versus critical thinking. I'd like to hear the response from the department of what the goal is for the testee, because as mentioned earlier from the commissioners, there's a ton of material, and a lot of the material overlaps each other in the book, which is very critical on the testee to memorize and try to determine what it is we're looking for as a department in a goal direction. Keeping in mind, we have standard operating procedures that weren't even on here, so I'd like to hear that, because we're only given a certain amount of time to go over this material from the time it's dismissed to us to the time the test is actually taken. I know that in other departments, you can focus on key areas of each book, basically, so I'd like to hear the response of the department. Mr. Remmer, I don't want to shut you down. It is kind of beyond the thing that we're doing today. That's a longer discussion that I don't disagree that I agree with you that it needs to happen. I'm just not sure that today is the opportunity or the chance to get into that, but I think it's a question, as I said earlier, that has been floating around ever since I've been on the commission, and I think Moses and I were together at that first meeting, so it's been a while that this whole issue has been discussed, so we probably need to do that at another time, if you don't mind. I agree with you that the discussion needs to happen, but this is just not the place for that. Okay, Kathy? I know that they have brought up chapter nine. I've looked through it, and I don't see exposures mentioned in it. I only see environment, so I was hoping that the appellants would give us where they're finding it in the book, if they're going to cite it. Anyone going to take that one? I don't have a book with me, so I can't look at it. The problem with virtual, right? When I read through this, and I read the appeal, and I understand where people are coming from, but as I look at all of these answers, this is just me talking, of all of the answers, environment, exposure, cost, benefit, equipment, safety, building construction, site access, the one that I'm the most concerned as a citizen of Denton is safety, and out of safety, because of safety, provide equipment that's appropriate, and that's what's made me think that's the right answer. The most important thing of all of those answers is safety, your safety, because you're trying to keep me safe. It's my job to provide you with the equipment that you need to be safe, regardless of all the other things. That's where I was coming from when I came up with my decision on this, which is obviously to sustain the key. That's where I was coming from. Any other comments? I would entertain a motion on question 11. I make a motion that we sustain the key and schedule the time for answering that difficult question. Second. Is there any discussion between the commissioners? I think it was Mr. Coyle who mentioned this. I think that we should know by now how the test is written, and even though the question keeps coming up, but if it's written in that way, and that's the understanding that the people that are taking it know, then it might be able to help us go a little bit faster through some of these, if what the department is expecting, the verbatim answers. That's just my comment for that. Anything else? All in favor of question 11, sustain the key, say aye. Aye. I would say oppose, but I think we all voted. Next is question 15, and that's Mr. Jones. Where'd he go? There you are. You keep moving around on the screen. This is actually the one that had the third reference that was faulty. That's my fault. But incident safety officer pages 172.1 and 210, as mentioned in there, they all discuss those very things that I put for answer D. So that's why I feel like that should be an appropriate response as well. Questions of the appellant? Let's see. Mr. Jones, could you show us again where you got that reference on number of first responders? I'm sorry. I don't have that reference in front of me, unfortunately. Okay. All right. Thank you. In your PO, you mentioned page 171, 210, and 350. That 350 is a different book. It shouldn't be considered. Any other questions of the appellant? Department of response? Let's sustain the key. Questions directly from the text. The appeals, two references to the other sections of ISO text are based on opinion of the appellant and not stated in the text. And then the third reference is out of a different book. Questions of fire? No questions from me. None. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? If I may? Just once again, I would like to point out on page 209, on the left-hand side, under control zones, the question is word for word, beginning with two issues apply. So once again, it is directly out of the text. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a motion on question 15. I motion to sustain the key. I'll second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining the key of 15, say aye. Aye. Okay. Next is question 17. Mr. Enos. Yes, sir. Okay. So I agree with the department and with the way that it's keyed. It is out of the book on -- see here, answered. I put a as another answer that should be corrected. On page 622, as it says in my appeal right there, it talks about the maximum loading for any unsupported aerial device occurs at angles of 70 and 80 degrees from horizontal. And as the amount of extension affects the device, the aerial device stress. So the maximum amount of stress on an aerial device, when it says considering long extensions at low angles for aerial loose, places maximum amount of stress on the device. Right there, it says the maximum loading, which would add stress to it, is at a horizontal at 70 to 80 degrees. So that's why I'm saying that A should also be accepted. It's because it says on a different page, it talks about the maximum loading, which refers to the maximum amount of stress that would be placed on the apparatus, the aerial apparatus, at low angles. And then it goes on to say that aerials operating at low angles, at a low angle of elevation and at a long extension are at their weakest operational point or position. And that's all on page 622 on the bottom left side, the two paragraphs that are right there. My question, and I'll go first, because the question is, are there questions for the appellant? What about answer B? Whenever possible, this application should be avoided, which is dealing with the angle. Isn't that true also? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. So if A is correct and B is correct, what's the only answer to the question that would be correct? I guess when you put it like that, you can say D. Yeah, because it's all of the above. Okay. I think I just stole Collin's show. Any other questions for the appellant? No. Fire response? Sustain the key. I think I just did. Any questions of fire? I have no questions of fire. Okay. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion on question 17. I motion that we sustain the key for question 17. I'll second. Discussion? Do we need to talk about it? I'm okay. All in favor of sustaining the key of question 17, say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Next is question 20. To appellants, Mr. Conaway. Have I seen that name and Mr. Gomez? The question says most new aerial ladders are equipped with a telescoping waterway that extends toward the top of the ladder. Generally, the minimum internal diameter of these piping systems is A, 4 inches, B, 5 inches, C, 3 1/2 inches, D, 3 inches. The appellants, Mr. Gomez says, although the question is a direct quote from the text, the information is generalized and nonspecific in nature, therefore, the question should be discarded. Mr. Conaway's appeal says the question worded vaguely, the question says generally and most with that wording, all answers should be accepting. Fire response? Sustained the key, direct quote from the book, none of these other diameters are even mentioned. Questions of fire? Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? I will entertain a motion on question 20. I'll move to sustain the key. I'll second. Seconded. Question 20, to sustain the key. Discussion? The word generally. That usually implies that there is some variety here rather than saying specifically or always. Even though the gentleman did not mention another size, when you use that adverb generally or that description, that does imply some variety of possibilities. John, to go back to the argument that I know Colin is getting ready to make, sorry, Italian chief, direct quote from the book, generally, the minimum internal diameter in this piping is four inches or 100 millimeters. So the book itself uses the term generally. I know what you're saying. I understand. That's what I'm saying. When you use the word generally, you kind of open the door there. But that is the only one that's listed. It's the only one they talk about. I agree. And I did sustain the key. I'm just saying that the word generally there does kind of give you an opening. I can get you to, we'll get you the address of the author and you can, we have a motion in a second. Do we have a, Seth? But the baby's gone. The baby's gone, I put her in her swing. A new fireman in training. Okay, sorry. So I do agree, this is a tough question for you all, especially since it even says generally in the book, would it be an option for you all to take A, B and C, or even just the numbers that are closest to the four inches, since it does say generally? I'm not sure that we can actually go that route. We can either, we'd either have to throw the question out. We're going to have to throw all the other questions out that have to be memorized. And I see on page 567, it makes reference to another type of, like a bed ladder pipe where it talked about three and three and a half inches, but we're talking about the new aerial ladders and that's what's under that telescoping waterway system. And so that one does say by the book and it's the four inches. I could see if someone read this, they would have remembered, oh, they said something about three and three and a half, but it was referencing to something different. So I would, I still will sustain the key on this. The motion is to sustain the key. So that's on the floor. I'm all in favor of sustaining the key. I just know that you, you got some issues there. So do we need to, are we going to vote? Are we done or on this one or where are we? You're muted. Okay. I know I'm talking to Stephanie. Okay, go ahead. It was a procedural question. So sorry, I was just going to say, I think that was a book's way of covering that generally it is the four inches, but some departments can defer from it. So it's not an always option. There are other options to it. It's just the most common. Okay. Motion and second to sustain the key of question 20 is on the floor. I would, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. So sustain the key. That was my procedural question. There's a motion on the floor. Next is item 30. Mr. Remmer. Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. After further looking at this from the time that I made my appeal, I don't have anything to add where I was getting my information. There's not enough information to make a justification for an appeal for this question. So I sustain the key on this. Does that kind of put words in your mouth and you can say no? Does that mean you're withdrawing your appeal? Yes, sir. Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. No, I understand. Thank you. Okay. Next is question 32. And that's Mr. Hudson. Yes, sir. I don't really have anything to add, especially after the previous appeals that were kind of going off word for word what the book has stated. Okay. Again, I'm going to ask you and I don't mean to -- it's not my place to put words in your mouth. Do you want to go forward with the appeal? Yes, sir. I'd like to go forward with it. Okay. I think on page 299 of the driver operator book is the reference. Yes. Well, they say 300. 300 is actually where the question -- the answer -- the correct answer came from. But on page 299 is where my argument was. Could you refresh our memory just real briefly about your appeal? It's been a while since I've read it. I don't know about the others, but I've slept since I read these. So the question had to do with a centripetal fire pump and pressure. And I said that on page 299 it states, "The speed of the impeller dictates the amount of pressure that is developed." So I suggested that answer B also be correct in addition to answer D. If -- okay. Are you saying that B is the only correct answer in your appeal? Again, I'm not -- I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm just asking you the question. No, sir. I'm not saying it is the only -- I would venture to say that it is the most correct. But the others are correct. Yes, sir. Other questions of the appellant? Who are we speaking to at this moment? Mr. Hudson, Cole Hudson. Mr. Hudson, as soon as I can find Mr. Hudson. Speak up, Cole. Say something so we can see the -- Oh, I see you. I see you. Thank you, Cole. So I'm on page 300. And at the very top, it says the three main factors -- excuse me. It says three main factors influence a centrifugal fire pump's discharge pressure. And then it gives the three bullet points there. And then when you go to the question, it uses those three bullet points. And then it has D. All of the above are correct. So why would you choose A over D? The only reason I chose A over D during the test was because of what I previously said on page 299 where it was a separate sentence that stated the only one of those three that was included in my reference sentence was the speed of the impeller dictates the amount of pressure that is developed. Thank you. Yes, sir. Other questions? Fire response. Staying the key, the appeal takes the information out of context. The book reads the speed of the impeller dictates the amount of pressure that is developed. Nowhere does this section talk about discharge pressure being solely dependent on the impeller speed. The book does clearly state the three main factors influencing centrifugal pumps fired, discharge pressure, the amount of water being discharged, the speed at which the impeller is turning, and the pressure of water when it enters the pump. Questions of fire? I have no questions of fire. None. Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? I haven't seen anyone. I would entertain a motion from the commissioners. I move that we sustain the key. I'll second. Okay. Been moved and seconded to sustain the key on question 32. Other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining the key on 32, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next is question 34, we have two appellants. Mr. Jones, you're carrying the torch. Again, the question does read and the answer does read straight out of the book. I would argue, though, that also the fourth principle allows that fluid pressure at the bottom of containers greater than at the top of the container, as is the fourth principle. Sorry. Say that one more time. The fourth principle provides that the intensity of any fluid pressure at the bottom of a container is greater than at the top of a container, that it's proportional to its depth. That being said, I think that A reads that if you read the question, it says fluid pressure is a point in a fluid at rest, is of the greatest intensity at the lowest point, I believe that's also true in addition to question C. Answer C. In your appeal, which I don't know if you have in front of you or not, but you have a quote that I'm not laying my eyes on right now that says the pressure at the bottom of the second container is twice that of the first? That is the second paragraph under the fourth principle on page 173. And it's referencing figure 5.8 at the bottom of the page. Okay. Okay, I remember. So that principle is dealing with, as I read it, that principle is dealing with the size of the container, not necessarily the general rule of pressure being more at the top or the bottom, because it talks about the pressure difference between the three sizes, the one foot two feet and three feet of the third container as I read that. Help me out. I'm not a scientist, I don't know. I know that we are, again, this is the argument of cognitive thinking versus quoting it out of a book. We learn a lot of fluid dynamics about elevation pressure and those being higher as you go deeper. So that's where I'm drawing those conclusions and reading that fourth principle that any point and lower in a container would be of higher intensity than it higher at the container. Any other questions of the appellant? I do have a question, please. Mr. Jones, thank you again. I'm looking at page 172 and under the second principle, it says it gives an answer, but in the question, it doesn't ask for a principle, it just says fluid pressure at the point and fluid at the rest. So I didn't know, is there a difference when looking at fluid pressure in general or when you're looking at fluid pressure in light of the different principles? These five principles, I don't know, does it change? My answer to your question is I don't know. The question asked at a point, a fluid point at rest, what is the true of that point? It is true that it exerts the same pressure in all directions. In my opinion, it's also true that it is of greater pressure, the fluid pressure at that point, deeper in the container than it is at the top of that container. I know the verbatim answer there on 172, but it's under the second principle. So I guess my question was, if you were to take all the principles and just give me a general statement about fluid pressure, which would be the most correct answer? I don't believe that B is the only correct answer. I believe that it is also higher at the lowest point. The further you go down inside the vessel. That's my opinion again. I'm also not a scientist, but as I understand it, or whatever that means, second principle says that it's equal in a container. The height of the container, the depth of the container is what changes the pressure. Not the highest, lowest within the container, but the depth of the container itself, whether it's this or this. So that's where the second principle actually. The second principle applies in the fourth principle. The fourth principle is just talking about different sizes of containers, is the way I understand it. I'm not a scientist either. Would you like me to respond to that? Can I ask a question? In figure 5.8, it's talking about the three different sizes of the containers, and it talks about that the one that measures two feet is a higher pressure than the one that measures only one foot and so on and so forth. All of these, are these considered fluids at rest, even though one is more full than the other? Are they all considered fluid at rest? I consider them fluid at rest. I don't read any different in the book. Principle 2 is considered fluids at rest because it takes into account fluids in a motion. The rest of them, I assume those are fluids at rest, and that the fourth principle refers to that it's proportional to its depth, so that any fluid would be, fluid pressure would be highest at the bottom of the container versus the top. Both answers are correct then, because what I'm looking at is fluid pressure at a point in fluid at rest is of the same intensity in all directions, meaning if I'm looking at that container that's two feet and I'm looking just at the, I don't know, two inches above where the water begins, if I'm measuring right there, the pressure is equal in all directions at that same depth, right? But what he's saying is, if I go higher, that's where the pressure changes. Is that correct? Are you asking me, Commissioner? Yes. So the fourth principle is saying, I'm sorry, in my understanding, the second principle is referring to any velocity in fluids that that would change the pressure. The fourth principle assumes, in my opinion, that those fluids are at rest and that a container would have a higher fluid intensity at the bottom than it would at the top. Yeah, I think we're talking about two, I think that's talking about two different things. Yes. One is talking about the amount of fluid and one is talking about just fluid at rest at any one given point. The second principle is fluid at rest, and that's what the question is. Now, I understand there were some questions, some comments. Shea, there's Shea. Yes, sir. I think what some of the confusion is here is, if you read on the second principle, it says fluid pressure at a point at rest. So that's saying, it's in a confined, it even says later on, it says this principle is using hydrostatic testing. We're not talking about the depth of the, like the height of an open container. See like in the fourth principle, it says the pressure of a liquid in an open, not fluid pressure. So we're talking about the pressure in a confined space, just like in our hydrants and the main water pipes that run underground, they're all at rest, which is how we are able to do our hydrostatic testing. So it's pressure, same in all, in all locations, same intensity in all directions. Just to reiterate, talking about fluid pressure in an open container. Mr. Wolf, you said, I think Shea pretty much said the same things that I was going to say. The fourth principle is talking about an open vessel. You can picture like a pool, like obviously there's going to be more pressure at the bottom of the pool than at the top, but the second principle is not referring to an open vessel. You can imagine the fire hose, there's not going to be more pressure at the bottom of the fire hose than at the top. If I'm applying 100 PSI to that fire hose, there's going to be the same amount of pressure at any point in that fire hose. So that's the, I think those are the really the big differences between the second and fourth principle. Which brings me back to my question of a general statement about fluid pressure. It doesn't, it doesn't give a context. When you have these different, differing instances, to me, those are going to change. But if you ask about fluid pressure in a pool versus fluid pressure in a hose or in a vessel, I would think you're going to have some variety. That's just me. Like the rest of you, I'm not a scientist, I'm just trying to read the document here. But I'm just struggling with that, with the absence of an identifying point there. Like for example, under the second principle, or if you're dealing with a water hose or you're dealing with a pool of water, then making a statement about the fluid pressure. So that's just me, personally. So I'm struggling with that. So I'll go back to you, Mr. Chair. John? Yes. John Jones. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. The only argument I would make is the question doesn't differentiate between open, closed, pressurized, non-pressurized. It just says a point at rest. That's why I was asking if that second figure would be considered fluid at rest as well. Okay. Fire response. Again the key. Nowhere does it talk about comparing two or more different amounts of heights of fluid or open vessel at all, like the fourth principle of water is based on. Questions of fire? I do. I still have a difficulty with the absence of a defining introduction there, defining introduction being under the fourth principle or under the second principle or when coming to what, just to make a blanket statement, I don't know, the verbatim response is underneath the second principle. The question is, does that apply in each and every instance? And that's where I'm struggling. So the scientific principles are on the very basic qualities of water and pressure. So if you don't add anything to it, that pressure, which it talks about at rest, is going to be equal in every direction. But as soon as you add a different factor, like an open container or height, then things can change. That number two is saying with no other factors involved, just the fact that the fluid is at rest, the water pressure will be going, at any point will be given, distribute out in every direction. Thank you. If we think about the water coming into our house, water's not on, it's not moving, but the pressure is working in 360 degrees, ready for us to use it whenever we're using it. And that's what this question is asking, because it's saying fluid pressure at rest. When we change things, that's what changes the perception. So, Cassie, I understand you had waved. Yes, sir, I was just going to add the way that I view it, this is how we do our hosting, the same intensity in all directions, we pressurize the hose with caps on it, and there's that same pressure exerted across the entire hose, not more so at the bottom, less at the top, and that's how we're able to check it for any damages, and so that's just how I'm able to differentiate, because it is a little bit confusing, but that's how I was able to think of it at rest, being in all directions, versus what Johnny Jones had said. Okay. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? I would entertain a motion from the commissioners. I move that we accept the key. I'll second. Motion and second to sustain the key for question 34 in discussion. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. I'm going to vote against. I didn't, it's not enough clarity there for me, so thank you. Did I go too quickly on the discussion? No, no, you're fine. I just felt like, you know, I thought I verbalized pretty well that I'm looking for a distinction, and that's for me. But if I have a difficulty, I could see it as possible with someone else having a difficulty as well. But just to get the process going, I had to go ahead and make the motion, so we could at least get it on the floor. Okay. Are we allowed to make the motion and then vote against it? Absolutely. Okay. It's a motion that, that's why there's three of us, but we can absolutely, we can absolutely vote against a motion. I mean, okay, I guess it's already done, but like wouldn't the same thing be to throw the question out, to make a motion to throw the question out? You could do that, I mean, but I just, I guess I've done this in a number of settings, so I knew that just to get the discussion going, I would go ahead and make the motion so we could get there and move on. His motion could have been against it to vote no, and then it would have been, it could have made an alternative and we could have voted on that one. I think that's the way Robert's Rules of Order would treat it. I can't remember. I was going to say something. I can't remember what it was now. We already voted, but it would have been good to see how many people got it right. We have generally not tried not to use that as a factor. That's kind of not fair. We've decided, we've decided over the years, so we could discuss that later. You said someone else had their hand up, but I mean, it's already done deal now, so. Brett? Brett? There you are. Yes. If it's a done deal, then I was going to make a comment earlier and Mr. John Baines was talking when he voted against it, but I'm not sure what I'm at liberty to say at this point. You're testing my Robert's Rules of Order here. Moving on, okay. Yeah, since it's, since it is a done deal, we'd have to, we'd have to vote to resend the motion and start all over again. Is that, is that what we want to do, commissioners? I'm here to help facilitate the process, so if that's okay, then we can do that. I just knew that I'm having trouble with the language, and so it's a little confusing for me, and I said perhaps it may be confusing for others. Maybe not for everyone, but for a few of us. So maybe that's a, that's a recommendation that Chief Skipper has taken about this question. If not, that's a subtle hint that he's going through now. All right. So the motion carries two to one. Next is question 36. Oh, hang on just a second. Removing Books. Okay. Removing because I've got my book out now, so we have two appeals, two appellants, Mr. Davis. There he is. And Mr. Punches. Mr. Davis, we haven't heard from you all morning, so you've been sitting there very duty-ish, so we'll let you go first. Commissioner Lilly, please don't ask how many people missed this, because it's probably just me and Punchy. We have decided that the most important thing is memorization, word for word. Where I messed up was I did not memorize page two, and I memorized page 17. And page 17, right in the middle of the page, it says leadership requires vision. And so that's why I answered D and felt like that was a good answer. I realize A and D can't both, but I would at least appreciate it if y'all look at it and see if you could make them all correct. That's it. Okay, Mr. Jones, oh, no, I'm sorry, Mr. Punches. Where is he? He's not, he's right now, he's not on the call. Let's see. Let's see if he calls back in very quickly. Can we just hang on for a second? If he comes in, I'm going to read his, I'm going to read his appeal. If he comes back in, we can maybe talk with him about any. Okay, so he's, he's out of the appeal. Okay. Questions of the appellant? Yes, I did have a question of, of Mr. Punches, he's, he's not on the, he can't answer your question. Oh, I'm sorry. That was Mr. Davis. That was Mr. Davis. I apologize. I apologize. Mr. Davis. How are you today? Oh, he can't hear me. He can't talk. Okay. I was just going to say you had referenced another page and could you, could you repeat what you had on that page for me, please? I want to, I'm looking at, at page, page two under chapter one and you're on page 17. Page 17, middle of the page, it says leadership requires vision. Okay. Okay. I see, so it didn't, it didn't really list any of those that are listed here. Okay. Well, well then, okay, all right, that gives me my next question, which I'm going to ask of a fire in just a minute. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Any other questions? Check, check the paragraph just above the headline that says no one trained me. Oh, that's yeah, I'm there. I have it. I see it. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Fire response. He's unmuted. I hit it. Sorry. Sustained the key, direct quote from the book, the test question is not a limiting question. It does not state leadership only requires, so Roman numbers one, two and three are all clearly correct, making a, the best answer. Question of fire. I was just basically going to see how we, how do we merge those two, you know, that, you know, on page 17 leadership requires vision and then I clearly see, you know, the section here that's referenced, but I was just trying to, in my mind, once again, make sure I give the appellants every opportunity to be correct. So that's where I am. I'm probing to make sure that we've given them every opportunity. So thank you for your patience. So vision. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say that on the, I think it was one of their justifications, it has, it says, or it points out that it says it's only one line, so assuming that it's only a one word answer. If it was a one word answer, then vision would be the correct one. The way that the book is written, if we were going to take it exactly out of the book, we should have said, or the way that the question was written. It requires blank and blank period. Does that make sense? I know it's a technicality, but the way that we're looking at the question and asking them to memorize them the way that they're written, I can't imagine anybody, sorry, Mr. Davis, choosing that action courage and termination aren't correct, but I do see what he's saying that there's one blank, and so if we're going to go with one blank, then the one on page 17 would have been a more acceptable answer, since that's one word. Just for clarification, Mr. Punches is the one who said one blank. Yeah, that's fine. I'm taking into consideration, because just because he's not here doesn't mean we can't take his. Right, but that one, that blank doesn't, and when you look at the answers, the rest of the question is action courage determination. Vision isn't listed. So that there's a blank, if you put and, then that, technically, that makes the question, that makes a question different, because then C would not be a correct answer, because the and, and that's why they just left it as the blanks, with then the choice of being one, two, and three, one and two, one, or none of the above, and vision isn't listed at all. But that, well, not on that page, but that's not saying that look at that page, it's saying look up, let the book step up and leave the entire book. So page 17 is in that book, and if the department's justification says that the direct quote, it's a direct quote from the book, the direct quote from the book says leadership requires courage and determination, so then they can't use that justification, because the exact line has both of those. But you could put, the point is in the question, in the stem of the question, the blank allows you to put any of those three words in there. Not if they're going to use this justification, it's a direct quote from the book. Well, I don't know, I don't think it means direct, my own, it doesn't mean that it's the direct quote in, I mean, it is verbatim in the sense that it, the sentences say leadership requires courage, determination, also requires action. That's a direct quote. So that's the quote on page 17, leadership requires vision. Yes, but vision isn't one of the answers. So the other three are correct, so the only correct answer on it, it's a question that probably needs to be looked at, but vision doesn't enter into it, period. Vision is not an answer that's an option, so we have to look at those three. It is an answer that's an option because there's an option given that says none of the above. But the others are there. The others are there. I'm going to have to argue or disagree on this one, I don't think that's a good question. On one end we're saying we want answers directly verbatim from the book, and now on the other side we're saying, oh, we can pick and choose from two different sentences what we want to justify the department's answer. You can't take something verbatim, and you've done tests like I have, you can't take something verbatim and make it a question if it's a declarative statement. You have to turn that around. The content of it is all right there in the book. All the three main words, four main words, but the fourth one is not in the game. It's not a pitch that the pitcher knows how to throw, so it's not in there at all. But you can't take a declarative statement, but it's not listed in their three options. But those three are listed as requirements of leadership. If you look at the book, that's what it says. Yeah, I've seen the book. I've seen page two and page 17, and that's my problem with it is that it's not saying look at the first page of the book, it's saying look at the step up and lead, look at the entire book. I'd like to hear if there's any other officers that are speaking against the APL. I'd like to hear what their thoughts are. Okay, Cassie? Yes, sir. My argument would be that the question isn't limiting that vision can't be a requirement. It's just stating that action, courage, and determination are requirements of it, which is what A states. The reason that B, C, and D can't be correct is because it's saying that only action and courage, or only action, or that none of those are fulfilling the requirements of leadership when they are stated in the book. And like you were saying, ma'am, we're looking at the entire book, and those are in the book, and it's not stating that vision can't be. It's just stating that those three are requirements of it. Page 17 reads leadership requires vision. Chair Ramsey, I have a question. I have a question, please. I'm inclined to agree with the other commissioner in that I believe that A and D would be correct answers. And the reason for that is you can say D if you're referencing page 17, but if you're referencing page two, then you would have one, two, and three. So how do we handle that? And I would think the other commissioner is probably going to side with me on this one, that I'm positive. I'm not putting words in your mouth, commissioner, possibly everyone that got it correct would say as is, but also give some opportunity to the other direct quote that says leadership requires vision. If we look at this as always choosing the best answer, and that's the test taking principle that we have to, that everybody has to learn, we took the best answer of those four answers, which is the best answer. It depends what page you're referencing. No. I'm asking for those four questions, of that question, those four answers. Okay, but think back the way that some of these other questions have been, we're not asking them to think, we're asking them to quote the book. And that is a direct quote in the book, Lillian. Yes, on page 17 as well. So I would say, I would recommend that we would either, you can either throw the entire question out or you could accept Andy. Okay. Rhett, I think he was there longer, I think. I'm not sure. Cole, you're coming. I'm coming to you. Hello. Can everybody hear me? Yes, sir. We can. Okay. I think everybody's trying to find balance, that critical point where we're trying to determine if we're going to memorize or have some sort of concept of deductive reasoning. And I feel like everybody is saying something that's right. This is not a word for word sentence. Now, the stem of the question could lead the testee to make a deductive reasoning question or answer to this. So moving forward, I'd just like to point out that number one, this is not a word for word question. And then number two, it'll, it makes and allows the testee to make a deductive reasoning answer choice based off the concept of the material. I have nothing to say. Okay. Cole. Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. I would like to say that Commissioner Lillian, I completely see what you're saying. The only thing that I would like to add to that is for you to look at question D, and it would say none of the above. So if we are following, say we're looking at the whole book, like you stated, because I do agree, it's not directly from page two, could be also page 17. But if D is also accepted as a possible correct answer, then we are going against the book saying that action, courage and determination are not required for leaders or for leadership, excuse me, but they are also in the book required. So that's why I don't feel D would also be an acceptable answer. I do see what you're saying, though. I do feel like vision, if it was listed, would definitely be a potential answer. But I think saying D would say that those three are not in the book, which they are. Shane. Hey there. Just to add to kind of what Cole was saying, if you read the question, at the beginning of the question, it says according to the author of Step Up and Lead. It's not saying according to a certain page. You could take any part of that book, anywhere where he says leadership requires anything, and plug it in there. Those three are in there of what is required for leadership when you say according to the author, not according to a certain page or a certain paragraph. It just says the author uses these three in the book as a determination of what is required for leadership. So it's not just those three, but those three are in there. Thank you. I agree with both of you, Cole and Shaye, then my only concern with that is that the reasoning of the department has to be changed then, because they're saying that it's a direct quote from the book. So if we are going to change that, then we can either choose to sustain the key once the reasoning has been updated, or we throw that question out. I think this underscores the need for the commissioners or the department or whoever is going to be doing this henceforth to have that conversation and come to a revised position on how we're going to move forward on this, but for today, you know, I'm having a little difficulty with this one, but I think I'm going to have to, just for the sake of moving forward, probably sustain the key, would be my recommendation. That is a motion? Reluctantly. I'll second it. Now we can get into discussion. I mean, it really doesn't, it's not asking for any deductive reasoning. They're all, they're four things listed. Leadership requires courage, determination, action, and vision. There's no deductivity at all in that. There's four things, but only three listed, and of those three, they're all listed. Therefore, the only answer is A. If none of the others were listed, you know, if they put four other, three other answers up there that none of which were of those four words, then the answer would be D, none of the above. They're all there. So if those three are there, the only answer is A. There's no deductivity about it at all. They're all there. It's not like saying if a ladder, if you're trying to rescue somebody, does the ladder go three feet, three and a half feet, three and three quarter feet above the, above the sill? I mean, that's a, that would be a question that perhaps, you know, if I'm in that window, I'm not worried about whether it's three and a half feet or three and three quarter feet. Just get me out of the burning building. That would be something that would require some deductive reasoning and is, I mean, nobody's going to get out and measure that. These are all right there. They're in the book, according to the author. Chair Ramsey, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on your deductive reasoning or your position. This is a declarative statement. So not only do you have a declarative statement on page two, but it's also on page 17. So you're correct. There's no deductive reasoning required, but they're asking a declarative statement. And so it declares on page two and declares on page 17 that what leadership requires. And for that reason, I struggle, but I realized just for the sake of the day, I'm probably going to have to just, you know, maintain the key because that number, that number D would be correct if we would consider, you know, another page, but we're not considering another page today. So I'm just going to, I'm going to stay with that for right now, Lillian, I'm sorry. Okay. Motion is on the floor is to sustain the key. Cassie. Do you have something, Cassie? Sorry, sorry. Okay. It's all right. I saw another. Wade. Was it you? Did you have something? I didn't have anything. Okay. I thought I saw your wave. All right. Motion is to sustain the key. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion carries. Colin did you get the message? I mean, Chief Skipper. All right. He's been around too long. Next is question 42. And there are two appellants for that one, Mr. Owen and Mr. Young. Okay. Mr. Young, you're the, you're the leader here. Where did he go? Can you hear me, sir? Yes, sir. We lost you there for a second. First of all, I wanted to kind of state my opinion book in general, because I think judging from the last question, and there's going to be some follow up questions that are appealing. This is a book that's talking about leadership that is written by an author. It's not scientific like we've been talking about. So it's based on his opinion as a leader. You could read a hundred books about leadership and they're going to have different things in that. So I think that that leaves it open for a lot of debate on these questions. And specifically on the question that we're talking about, the first point that I made is that the question states one of the best tools. When you say one of the best tools, I could tell you one of the best tools for cutting a roof is a chainsaw. I could also tell you one of the best tools for cutting the roof is also an axe. So it implies that there could be multiple bests. My second point is the book as a whole is about leadership, i.e. motivating people. That's what leadership really is, is motivating people to follow. So if you're making a statement that this is the only best tool, well then the whole book should have been written about that one specific thing, and it's not. It's written about multiple things. Then my third point was, if you look at the book and you read it as a whole, now I know that the department is going to say it's a direct quote, and there is a sentence in there that does say what the question says. But we are trying to memorize, but like one of the commissioners said before, you're memorizing a whole book. You're memorizing multiple books. You can't expect a person to memorize the exact thing that it says on one page and then on multiple other pages, which I have listed in my appeal, page 101, page 134 through 136, page 151, page 225, page 252, page 129, all those pages talks about a reward system as being a way to motivate people and to lead them. So to just single out enthusiasm as the one basic thing that motivates people, I think that that whole question obviously could have multiple answers, and in general, it leads it up to interpretation. So that's kind of my argument. The other appeal also talks about answer A as being correct, again, talking about rewards. They weren't quite as specific as you, Mr. Young, in listing the pages, but it's basically the same argument. Any questions of the appellants? Thank you for your thoroughness and your presentation. Yes, sir. Lillian, do you have any questions? This is the same thing as before, but I do appreciate the explanation. Okay, fire response. Sustain the key. Direct quote from the book. According to the book, reward systems show appreciation, enthusiasm motivates others. It does not state that appreciation equals motivates, nor does it state reward system leads to motivation. Questions of fire? Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? I would entertain a motion. Is there anywhere that, because I understand what Fire is saying, that appreciation does not equal motivates. Is there anywhere that it does make those two synonymous? I'm asking the appellants. I was looking at page 101, and it just talks about rewards and recognitions are vitally important when it comes to expressing appreciation, but it doesn't say that appreciation is synonymous with motivation. Chairman Ramsey, if you give me a few minutes, I'm actually going through the book now, looking at these other references. So please give me just a moment. Thank you. ten minutes, Mr. Young, can you help us? I know you don't have the book in front of you. I assume you don't have the book in front of you. No, sir. I actually do have the book in front of me. Can you? I think Commissioner Prado makes a very good question about is there a linkage between reward and motivation? On the spot, I cannot present anything. You have to realize that I appealed this question, you know, a couple of months ago, I don't have information of what they the fire service comes back at us with. And now we're put on the spot to try to read through a whole book and find their link that they provide for us. And so right here on the spot, I did not have that. I mean, if you gave me a month, I could probably come up with, you know what I mean? But you know, my argument would be is what motivates you may be different than what motivates me, which may be different than motivate somebody else. Appreciation for you may motivate you. Appreciation for somebody else may not motivate them. If they feel appreciated, they may that may motivate them. So to say that appreciation doesn't motivate people, again, is an opinion. And I know we're going just off of this book, but he emphasizes a lot of things in this book to lead people. And I would argue that motivating people and leading people is almost one in the same. Thank you. I'm almost done. Commissioner Chairman, I'm looking at I'm in the 200s now. Thank you. I'm finished. Thank you for your patience. Did you find anything? Well, I think there's a definitely a theme there of recognition and recognizing. But enthusiasm is not the only method of recognize. So I think, you know, to to to kind of underscore the gentleman's point or just a point in general. Yes, it specifically says enthusiasm is one of the best tools. It's on page 47. But as I as I speed read through some of the other areas, there are other means of recognizing as well. And so, you know, I've just got to ask myself, does it harm anything to to have a differing opinion? So that's where I am right now. And I haven't come to that conclusion, but the question doesn't say a tool to recognize the questions of the tool to motivate the I'm looking at the the department's reasoning that it does not state that appreciation equals motivation. And so that's why I was asking at any point, can can those who are those to use as synonyms in the book that we weren't able I wasn't able to find that when I was looking at all the pages that were listed on the closest that I came was to increase morale. That's the closest one that I found on my perusal through it. Part of this, I think, was and was my background, and Lillian just says yours in teaching, because we do use reward, both extrinsic and intrinsic as ways to motivate. But you're absolutely right in the sense that the book only pairs enthusiasm with motivation in those words. But I thought A and B would be would both be acceptable answers. Is that your motion? If I can make the motion, I would, I would move that we accept A and B as correct answers. Good. Is there a second? I'll second that. Any discussion? Now, I'm not opposed to that, I just think we, we are on a very fine line that on some questions, we, we agree, and we go strictly by what's in the book, and then another question we're saying, we're allowing our firefighters to think for themselves, which they ought. But I think that we as commissioners, when we're deciding on these questions, we're, we're in a very fine line that we're going back and forth, and I don't I don't really like that, but I don't oppose to accept these. The motion is to accept A and B as as answers to question 42. Yes, sir. Just because it keeps coming up from the department, the expectation is rote memorization and that the answer should be coming from the book and material and not your opinion or anyone else's opinion. It is straight from the book. Greg, go ahead if you said you had something. Yes, sir. I was just almost what battalion chief skipper just said in a rain area with Steve Young said earlier, unfortunately, this book doesn't isn't based on scientific fact or, you know, anything that you could look up or research, it's essentially it's essentially just the author's opinion, several anecdotes, quotes from everybody. And if we were if we were given the liberty to just say that this word is synonymous with another word in the book, this book particular you could say that about the whole thing. I mean, because it's like I said, it's just his opinion. So I'm afraid if we start doing that, then like Commissioner Carrillo said, then we're open up a whole box of worms about, well, if a means B, then B means C. And then where do we go from there? On the other hand, the answer enthusiasm is a direct quote from the book. Thank you. All right, the motion on the floor is to accept a and B as answers to question 42. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Nay. Motion is defeated. So I need another motion. So I make a motion that we sustain the key next time to be. Did you vote against it? Commissioner? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Okay. I'll second it just to just to get the discussion started. Any other discussion? Motion on the floor now is to sustain the key. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Nay. And I, and I positive. So motion to sustain the key carries. Moving on. Wow. Got some must see TV there. Motion 44 that Jason, I don't think Jason is on, is he Mr. Owen? Okay. Question individuals who have had the greatest impact on the organization overall are usually those blank A who are the company officers B they get designated as barn bosses C at the top of the organization D who makes the least amount of money. The answer is C at the top of the organization. Mr. Owen's appeal says that another answer A is also correct. And his justification is the entire book talks about leadership rising from all ranks. Page, I think it's 51 talked about layered leadership. So to me, the answer A should also be correct. Brett Brett, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. I'm here. Yes, sir. I just like to expand on this. There's two sentences that I'd like to reference in the book immediately after this, this paragraph where they're referencing the answer, it says fire officers play critical roles in creating the right customer service. Now the entire chapter is about customer service and culture on 177. The author states creating a culture of customer service does not happen by accident. Buying into the concept of layered leadership, the need for leaders throughout an entire organization is especially important when it comes to customer service. So if he's referencing the layered leadership term, which he references again on page 81, he specifically says layered leadership is a fancy way of saying that 99% of all leadership occurs not from the top, from the middle of the organization. What page was that again, Brett, excuse me? Page 81. All right. Thank you. That is the second complete paragraph, first sentence. We can't have questions from the impellent because that's me and I'm not, and I just read it. Fire response. Direct quote from the book about to sustain the key. Greg, do you have something? I was just going to state as I read it, the question is not asking where leadership occurs. It's asking who has the greatest impact. Question commissioners? I have no questions at this time. Thank you. No question. Okay. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? The appeal says to include A as a correct answer. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion. I'll second discussion. All in favor of sustaining the key of question 44. Say I. Opposed. Okay. Next is question 47, hang on here just a second. All right. Question 47, Mr. Atweiler. I haven't seen that name. Not here. Oh, I'm sorry, there are two Mr. Davis, you're leading the charge again. I'll just agree with battalion chief skipper. Oh, let's see. This is the one that has six. All right, hang on just one second. Yeah, let me, I'll come back to all of you, anyone that hasn't spoken yet, but prior response is to accept A and B. So now Mr. Davis, Mr. Jones, there you go, Mr. Jones. Any comments? I agree with the city's take on it. I'd just like to point out that again, this is another example of not using rope memory. Yep, Mr. Punches, he's not with us, Mr. Rimmer, Rimmer, Rimmer, I think it is, right? It's Rimmer, sir. Yes, sir. I apologize if I mispronounced it. Oh, you're fine. I get it a lot. No, I'd just like to second what Johnny Jones said about that we're teetering a fine line between memorization. Yep. That's everybody, isn't it, Mr. Young? Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. The department in their rebuttal has already accepted my answer that I said you should accept crisis and adversity. I would just like to point out that their argument for accepting this question is the exact opposite of the last question I just appealed, that basically I said, hey, there's two answers that work here, and now they're saying, even though it says it's a direct quote in the book, we're going to accept another answer. So in my opinion, the department is being wishy washy on what exactly they're accepting and not accepting, but then they expect us to go by the letter of the law, and by God, it has to be word for word out of the book. I just think that that's a double standard. That's my opinion. Sorry. Cole? Yes, sir. I just wanted to kind of go off of what he was saying, this question and the next question. I completely agree with what he said, the department's standard or their reasoning for the past, however many questions we've gone through already today have been direct quotes from the book. And if you turn to page 236, you can see it is word for word quote from the book, and nowhere does it say adversity. And even where they're saying that adversity is, or even where they're saying this entire section is referring to adversity, I mean, I feel like they're going against what they've been saying all day long. Brett? I think I'll sum it up for everybody on this meeting that this is collectively frustrating. I think Chief came out and said that we're held to a standard of memorize. But as Mr. Steve Young said, that it's a little bit frustrating to also be held to double standard. Now, I also agree with the motion to accept both answers, but we're also teetering a fine line because I just pointed out on the last question that there is a specific sentence that says layered leadership occurs from the middle of the organization and not from the top. So what are we being held to? May I speak? Absolutely. If I'm looking at those other two questions, question 44 and 42, which I think are the ones that everybody's referencing too, I can't justify, just on the appeals that some of you guys wrote, some people actually went and defined the terms, defined the word diversity and crisis, and found very similar definitions for them. And so I agree with that, but if I go back, I can't make that same correlation between a reward system and enthusiasm as two of the top choices that we're trying to be considered. And then the layered leadership argument coming from the middle of an organization, 99% of the leadership coming from the middle, that contradicts A, because A is saying who are the company officers. And it doesn't say company officers are in the middle or at the top or in the lower or where. So when I'm looking at these and I'm trying to understand and be objective and have you in mind and have the department in mind and what the folks are saying, that's where my votes are going from. I'm trying to consider all of it. But I agree that it is very frustrating, but these are not all, these last questions are not the same. The justification that the department uses is the same. I don't really think that that's the best justification, just like I said on the other one that I voted against. And I think the department needs the change of justification, but the questions themselves and the answer choices are not the same. Adversity and crisis, I think whoever the six appeal appellants made a very good argument. And that's why I put it at the beginning too, that whenever you're coming in, you're presenting an argument to try to appeal the question, you're trying to convince us and see something that we can't see on our own by looking just at the paper. And so I appreciate the people that are trying to put forth a little bit more effort other than just saying it's what I wrote. So for me, it's not the same as 47 is not the same as 44 and 42. I'll simply say that I'm glad that we have three of us overseeing the appeals process. And I'm glad for the opportunity to have independent thought. And I think we try very hard to take the position of each of the candidates when and where we can. And if we can't, then we don't. I was just asking if we had actually gone to fire for their response. I read it in but we need to go to them and let them officially read in their response. So we'll go to fire. Fire votes to accept A and B. The entire section is referring to adversity and the crisis quote is embedded in this section. The reader can come to the conclusion that crisis means the same thing as adversity in this section. Any other questions of fire? No questions of fire. Come in for me. I'm here. Okay. I can't find you. There you are. You're back. I'm getting coffee. You weren't on my screen. Okay. Who did you say? Cole? Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Since now that fire has had their full response, I just wanted to kind of go back upon what I said also in their response or reasoning to this one, they said the reader can come to the conclusion. Well, they just said earlier, no offense to Chief Skipper, but Chief Skipper just said the department's stance is that we're here to memorize a certain thing. So all the previous questions that we've sustained has been off of the memorization, but now all of a sudden we're able to reason and figure out that there could be more than one even though it is still a direct quote from the book. Okay. Thank you. Who else? Shay? Well, again, sorry, I was just reading, I was trying to read through that section that they were referring to, it says the entire section is referring to adversity and crisis. Nowhere in here have I found where it says anything about the correlation or a relation between adversity and being a revealer of character, but word for word in the book right here, it's saying that crisis is the greatest revealer of character. I mean, if we go off of the past practices of even just today, sustaining the key would be the proper answer in this, in my opinion, just because it doesn't say anywhere else in here about looking at a revealer of character and referring to adversity, but it does do that on B, which is crisis. Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a motion. I move that we accept the department's decision to accept A and B. I'll second that. Okay. Motion is to accept A and B. And it has been seconded in discussion, commissioners. Like I said, I'm satisfied with the correlation of the definitions, both from the appellant side and also from the department, where there's more correlation between adversity and crisis than the other times that we've seen earlier in the questions and the appeals that have been brought forth. So I'm comfortable accepting both of those answers. Anything else? Can I petition for a five minute break? Can we vote on this one first? Oh, do we, do we didn't vote yet? We haven't voted yet. Motion is to accept A and B. All the favors say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Yes. Can we take a five minute break, please? I promise no more than five minutes. Participants, participants, don't sign out. That's a tough part of the question of this job. Okay. Next question to be appealed was question 53. All right. Where's Craig? There he's, there he's back. And then Shay, Shay back. Yes, he's back. Cassie, she's been waiting patiently. John, and red's back. Yep. He's a trooper. All right. Next question. We have commissioners, right? Are we all back? Yeah, there we go. Next question to be appealed is question 53. There are six appellants, Shay, no, let's let Cassie, she's been, she's been very patient all day on this, this appeal. So we'll let her start and kind of lead us off. So yes, sir. The question is, a blank can be a great asset to help a leader express appreciation for an individual's efforts and contributions to the team. In my appeal, I stated that the author makes a point to stress the importance of public recognition to show appreciation. He does that on pages 129 and 134 through 35, which I state or I quote later. On page 137, he lists formal acknowledgments as a way to show appreciation. On page 134, he has examples of former recognition, formal recognition, which includes ceremonies and an award ceremony as an asset for expressing appreciation according to the statements made by the author. Shortly below that, I put all the pages and the quotes directly from the book that support that argument. Okay, thank you. Shay. Yes, sir. I believe Casey explained that very well. Not much more to add to that. I mean, it clearly states on page 135, or I'm sorry, on page 137, two ways to show appreciation formal method is one of those, so. Okay, Craig, anything to add? No, sir, I think they pretty much got it all. I don't want to mute you guys. I just want to make sure we move on. John? I appreciate Firefighter Hill, your coverage of it. I think she did a good job. Okay. Brett. Brett. Okay, I second that. This also went my favor, and moving forward, I just would like to grow on the department on this because once again, this goes into my favor. And I'm going to throw it out there that we're either memorizing directly where the page is, states, or we're citing other useful information, which is concept. Okay. Fire response. Oh, I'm sorry, commissioners, questions for the appellants? No questions. I think the number of appeals is kind of an indication. So I'm thankful for all of the varied input that everyone took the time to provide. Questions? Other questions? Fire response. Will you vote to accept A and B? Opposition and other places in the book, both are correct, while the book does not clearly state award ceremony, it does state on page 137, two ways to show appreciation is informal and formal settings. A formal setting can be an award ceremony. I'd also like to further say that the fire response will not differ from anything written that is on the response sheet other than directly answering questions to the commissioners. Okay. Questions of fire? Commissioners? I have no questions at this time. Thank you. Okay. Cole? I understand you had a question. Yes, sir. I just wanted to kind of give my rebuttal to this. Once again, we're kind of back to where we were with the previous question. If you go to page 138, which is where the question comes from, it is a direct quote. If you even look at the reasoning behind the department's response, it even admits that the fact that the book does not clearly state award ceremony. While it is back a few pages like Hillyard said earlier, it's not a direct quote. That is leading you down the road that we've been down multiple times today with other questions of connecting dots. While I don't disagree that that's correct and I'm pretty confident that that's the way this question is going to go and that it's going to be A and B, I just want to point out that we're going back to where we were earlier and that everybody was in agreeance of sustaining the key when we're allowed to connect dots and have our own thought processes to get the answers. We're kind of going back on that at this point and that's where this one's coming from. You got to connect two or three dots within this chapter to get that and I don't disagree with it, but I also don't think it's right. I think the direct quote that we've gone with all day is on page 138 and clearly states answer B is the only correct answer there. Anyone else like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Commissioners, I would entertain a motion. I make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the department to accept A and B. I will second, but I do agree with Mr. Hudson. Discussion? Do you want to move and second it? Is there any discussion? I'm not as easy on this question as the one before. Like I said, I can, and even though instead when they looked up the word adversity and crisis, they matched the definitions almost word for word. And so that to me, more of a concise, you know, use of more synonyms and can be interpreted either way. This one is not. Those are two completely different things and because it is a quote, I think that that's where we start running into problems, but I know I think we've talked about this before. You know, it's not so much the authors of the book, the makers of the test and the way that the questions are framed. I think that's what needs to be looked at. But I mean, I don't oppose sustaining what the department is accepting to say that we accept A and B, but I do caution that we need to be careful with this because we're in favor of some, but not in favor of all. Any other? Excuse me. Any discussion? All in favor of accepting A and B for question 53, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes. Question 54. Okay Mr. Punches appealed this question. Question successful organization depends very much on a leader's blank and the answers are years of experience, outside political connections, ability to inspire, communication styles. The answer to the question, the keyed answer to the question is ability to inspire. That's answer C. And Mr. Punches says that D is correct in addition and both should be allowed for credit. His appeal says, I believe ability to inspire is correct, but ability to communicate and the style of communication go together and each is needed to make the other effective. Fire response. To sustain the key, questions direct quote from the book, this is not a valid appeal. The appellant does not make a valid argument for communication styles since it does not attempt to show where in the text it states the communication styles of a leader is very much dependent on the organization's success. Questions of fire? I have no questions of fire. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Seeing none. All in favor of accepting A, I'm sorry, sustaining the key for 54. Do we make a motion? No motion. Did I skip -- got ahead of myself. I would entertain a motion to do something. Sorry. I make a motion. Go ahead. Go ahead. I was going to say the appellant is not here, right? Correct. Okay. This would have been a good one. I make a motion that we accept -- that we maintain the key, accept the key. Sustain the key. That's the correct word. Getting late in the day. Any discussion? I do have some discussion here. When I got to this question, I really liked D. But the book said C. So and I believe that communication styles are related to ones ability to inspire. I'm just thinking of -- and I'll be very blunt. When I was in the military, some of the leaders said if you can't put together a string of good expert leaders that you can't lead, that your inspiration was associated with -- I just call it profanity. And then there came along a different group of leaders who chose not to use profanity but use a different style. And I think -- so while communication is important, I think the bottom line is the ability to inspire. And so I said all that to say that I really thought a lot about this one, and even though I would like to say communication styles are equally as important, I think the eventual thing is that you have to have the ability to inspire. But the book says the success of an organization depends very much on a leader's ability to inspire. So I had to go with sustainability. Any other discussion? I mean, I'm willing to sustain the key, but I did also like D. When I was looking at the back of the book, there's tons of pages dedicated to communication styles, one of them being assertiveness. And if you're not an assertive communicator, people likely won't follow orders, and without that, the department won't be successful. But I mean, I think that's probably one of the big things that whenever you appeal, you need to show up, you know, because this question could have really gone the other way. But for today, we'll sustain the key, if that's the case. Okay. I'll accept that as a call to question. All in favor of sustaining the key on 54, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Okay. Question 70. Two repealants. Do we lose Wade? I'm here. I would draw my appeal. Okay. Brett? So, the answer is referenced on page 195, and previously when we were talking about a question from the ISO book, it wasn't a direct sentence on number two, and it was the answer was actually obtained from the titles of each, it was obtained from each subtitle from the main title, if that makes any sense. So the quality control of lumber is the title of this, meaning that anything following this is fair game for answer. So I think all of the above would qualify for the answer of this question. And in conclusion, when the engineer is picking materials to construct a building, they are not limited to just the strength and appearance of the lumber, okay? They're also held to standard of cost and durability. So that is a concept answer, and I realize that that is not word for word out of the book. So here we are again. Questions for the appellant? I don't have a question for the appellant, but that part that he quoted, it says lumber can be graded, evaluated for both structural strength and appearance, but the question here says lumber is graded, not can be graded. I'm inclined to look at all of these other answers. I'm sorry, Commissioner, you broke up on me. What did you say? That there's a difference between what the book states and how the question is stated, even though it's saying that it's a direct clip from the book. If you look at the book, at the part where the gentleman quoted under the quality control of lumber, where lumber is in red, it says lumber can be graded, evaluated for both structural strength and appearance, but this here on our question, it says lumber is graded on the basis of the second sentence after, it says lumber with a higher grade is more costly. So what I'm saying is I can be persuaded to have to accept more than one of these answers because it's not word for word and it's not the same. One is saying it can be, the other saying it is. Okay, Greg, was it Greg? Yeah, I was wondering where Rimmer cited that information about engineering choosing lumber. And another point is the question is saying what are the criteria for grading lumber, not the criteria an engineer uses for selecting lumber. Brett, do you want to respond? No response other than what I've already stated. Like I said, the answer that I'm implying is that this is a concept question. When you construct a building, I don't have the reference off the top of my head coil, but it is not limited to just appearance of lumber and the strength. I can give you a reference on the disadvantages of wood, which it says on page 182 that this would imply that knots, knotholes, decay, insects, splits and warps are disadvantaged. And then on page 183, it says that another factor affects wood strength is the load direction. Wood is stronger parallel to the grain against the grain. So I don't know how to answer your question, Cole. Okay. Other comments? Seth? I have a question, Chairman. Yes, sir. This is a question to the department. And forgive me for being very, very basic in this question, but why would you include such a question on a test like this? Battalion Chief, you haven't? I'm thinking, sir. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to fall back on this information is in the source material that the fire department decided that every firefighter should know, and it is all subject to being included on the test, up to the copyright date of the book, if we so chose. I'm sorry, my question probably was not a good one, so let me try again. When testing or having your firemen, fire women, study, why is it important to know about grading lumber? What does that do? Is that part of when you're going into a fire, or are you looking at general construction, or is this part of the inspection aspect of a fire? All aspects of the building construction book are related to the fire service. For that purpose, what you just said, if we're going to have a fire in whatever given building, we should know aspects of all different kinds of construction to include lumber, masonry, steel construction. There's five different basic levels of construction the fire service breaks it down into, but all of these are just little nuggets of information that a firefighter would use to size up a building and determine what kind of risk they're going to see as they go by the fire in that structure. Let me come back with you another question. Let's say, for example, I believe the fire department maintains records about building construction, is that correct? Some records around town? The fire department will do pre-plans, they also do inspections, so we go and inspect for fire safety, fire codes, that kind of thing, so that might be falling into what you're thinking about there, sir. So I'm thinking, and I'm just trying to get my arms around this piece of information, why it's important and what you're going to use it for. So let's say, for example, somewhere in your central record keeping, I own a building here in town, and you say, look at John Bang's building and look at the construction that it was made from. So if you had to have a call, you would do a lookup and say, this building is class one, class two, class three, class four, and you have a kind of a ready-made determination of the risk, of the risk that you're dealing with. So this is why it's important to understand the strength and the appearance, I would say. Is that right? Is that a fair statement? I would say to factor into it, yes, sir. Okay. So let me kind of take the long way to get to that answer. No problem. Any other questions of the appellant? All right. We'll go to fire for their response. To sustain the key, the question is a direct quote from the book. The book clearly states that lumber is graded based on strength and appearance. The appeal is trying to attempt to speak to lumber, and wood panel products are the same thing, which is false. On page 187, under the panel section, it clearly states that wood panel products differ greatly from solid dimensional lumber. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Yes, sir. I had my hand raised earlier. I was just going to point out the paragraph right after where it says lumber, let's see, lumber can be graded for both structural strength and appearance. The next paragraph in the first sentence also says wood panel products are also graded for their structural use and their exposure durability, which would make me think that B and C would be correct. Okay. Cole. Yes, sir. I kind of wanted to address what Commissioner Lillian had asked about earlier, where it said they can be. If you look on page 195 at the top right is the actual definition for lumber, and at the end of the definition after a semicolon, it says items are graded for strength and appearance. Between the two of those, between in the text and in the definition, in my opinion, the definition is more of something that would be able to hold up than in the text, because as we've seen for everybody that's read these books, there's lots of typos, I mean, it's humans that are writing those instead of necessarily copying and pasting the definitions. I do, I had a question, so after looking at that and then saying it's graded, which basically means it's evaluated, so lumber is evaluated on the base of strength and appearance is what the book says, right? Okay. Yes. So the results of that evaluation would be the cost, how much cost, how much that piece of lumber would cost, right? Am I on the right track thinking? So Lillian, who are you addressing? I'm just talking, because I'm trying to rule out, because one of the appeals is that we would accept all the answers, and one of them is that we would accept C, so I'm inclined to accept C. I'm trying to understand why I wouldn't say that all of the answers should be accepted. So A and D are talking about cost, but cost comes after the evaluation. So it's not that they're being evaluated on how much the cost, the cost is after, so lumber is evaluated on the basis of strength and appearance, strength and durability, which to me without appearance, which we can make a case for, that I'm more inclined to accepting B and C than I would to accept all the answers. Lillian, we're just talking, right? Okay. So and that kind of gets back to why I was asking the question about evaluations, but I don't think the fire department worries about cost as much as they worry about strength and durability when you're looking at potential fire hazards, or how quickly a fire would spread. No, I'm a novice. I'm not a person that does a lot of construction, but I've always heard that handling was not as durable necessarily as your lumber. Let me jump in for just a second. John hold that thought, let's do the procedure and then we can get to our discussion. You're kind of ahead of me in that, so let's hold your thought though. All right. Is there anyone like to speak against the appeal? I would entertain a motion on question 70. You're muted. I make a motion that we accept B and C as answers. I'll second that motion. All right. Now we can have the discussion. Now we're back in track. If I were a firefighter, I'd want to know about the strength for sure. I guess I'm not as concerned about the appearance. Probably I am a little bit about the durability, but I certainly want to know about the strength before I walk into a building in that same paragraph, it makes reference why they would want to know. I would think it says in a given structure, only a few critical columns or beams may require high structural grade. If I'm going into a building that I think is going to fall down, I'm looking at those main columns to make sure that it's going to sustain it and gauge how much time I have to get and get out. But the question, and I know why you're asking this because why is it even relevant, right? Because it's a question that we need to throw out because they may not even be relevant to firefighters. But I think if it's going to talk about that and make reference to the columns, then I think it is relevant. The question is very basic though. Lumber is graded on the basis of what? It's evaluated on the basis of what? On strength and appearance, and I can make an argument for strength and durability. And I'm okay with that. And that's where I was, I'm just trying to see why this is relevant. I mean, you have to be able to do a quick study or either you have records that indicate what kind of risk you're going into, you know? And that's why they need to know it. That's why it's in there so that they're aware of it. I mean, over the years, again, I'll go back to my experience. I've learned a lot about building construction that I wondered, that I never thought about before until I was thinking and trying to think in terms of a fire person and how they would go into a building and what they need to know. So I think that's why the durability, and that's not our decision to make. That's the fire department's decision as to whether it's relevant or not. If it's not relevant, then they take it out of the testing. Okay, then there's a motion on the floor. I'll allow because of what I promised earlier, who do we have, Cole? Yes, sir. The way that I'm kind of looking at the way lumber is graded, and I see what y'all are saying as far as the fire department, but going back to what Chief Skipper said a minute ago, the way that these tests are written, we are able to be tested on the copyright date of the book if that just happens to be one of the questions that comes up. Is that necessary for something on the fire ground? Absolutely not. Everybody would agree with that. However, that is still a possibility for a question. Also, when it comes to how lumber is graded, it's not necessarily graded for the fire service. It's graded for construction companies. So if you go to Lowe's or you go to Home Depot and you walk in there, just because it's graded for a certain thing, it's graded for what the answer is, strength and appearance. Not graded for the fire service, and I think that's kind of where the difference comes in there. Okay. Thank you, Cole. Casey? I was pretty much going to say what Cole said. Okay. Shay? Yeah, I think Cole kind of hit it. It says in the book, if we start going off of something that's different, I mean, it just says right there in the book, in two spots, it says the same thing, almost exactly, that they're graded for strength and appearance. It says nothing about the durability, nothing about the cost in that sentence or in those parts when it's talking about how the lumber is actually graded. All it says is strength and appearance. So I vote that we sustain the key on that one. You don't get to vote. Good thought, though. Keep that in mind. It was worth a shot. Rhett? Good shot. Good shot. Yes, sir. I'll try to make this as brief as possible because I know that, yes, I have no leg to stand on if you're going to grade the answer on a specific sentence, but in the fire service, this is a concept field of work. And when you're looking at a building and the engineers, this is not from the book. This is a whole encompassing process of building construction from the book. This book, other books of building construction that we have been tested on and from personal experience. When an engineer designs a building and he uses lumber, he is at liberty to engineer that building based off of cost, structural strength, durability. And what is the other one, appearance, I guess. Appearance is a primary answer here. We're going to hold our building based off its appearance. So I know that whenever I go into a building, I'm not going to judge it by its appearance, but its skeleton framework and all of it as an encompassing, that's what the engineer is. So, you know, back to quality control of lumber is the title. Now we've already referenced in the past that on number two, the ISO book, the answers were not a direct sentence, it was actually subtitles of the main title. So I would like to urge from this point forward, regardless of the outcome, that us as a department need to determine where our common ground is going to be. So that's all I have. >> Okay. Was there another one? Okay. There's a motion to the commissioners, there's a motion on the floor to accept B and C. Cole, did you just raise your hand? >> Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I won't waste your time a whole lot. Remember, I mean no disrespect to you personally, I would just like to point out that the references he threw out on that last one were not based out of this book, which we are tested out of. I understand personal experience and I understand his points, but I just wanted to throw that out there before we make a final decision here. >> Again, there's a motion on the floor that we're in discussion. The only reference that I see on this page, now I obviously haven't read the book like these guys have, these folks have. The durability issue, the word durability comes about in discussion of wood paneling, wood panel products, not lumber. So the durability, strength is in both, but the one that comes out as the definition for grading of lumber is strength and appearance. Now that being said, the motion on the floor is to accept B and C. >> But before we vote, can I ask one more question, Chair? >> Sure. We're still in discussion. >> Okay. On page 195, there are some pictures there, and it has these titles, APA, APA, APA, and then it says 24OC, 4824, 16OC, what are those? >> The span rating, Cole? >> What does that mean? >> I don't know. Just reading the book. Cole, can you enlighten us? >> So all of those are the stamps on the wood. And underneath it gives a listing of everything it is. It could be anything from the mill that it came from to the grain orientation indicator. But if you look at number one on that gray, grayed out piece in figure 7.25 that you're talking about, it has the panel grade. So while it looks like there's a lot more there, not all of that is the grading. So tell me about 7.24, figure 7.24. >> I'm sorry. I thought we were looking at 7.25. >> I was. But it's all numbers. And I'm just -- to me, it appears they're trying to impart some type of information to us. And I didn't know if this -- when you go into a -- do you look at this? Do you memorize this? What's the benefit of these numbers? >> All right. >> That I'm not sure I can answer. I'm talking about engineers versus these. >> Figure -- >> We're working on your answer, John. >> Thank you. I was just clarifying. Figure 7.24, and then you go down to 7.25, you have lots of numbers and information. They're trying to impart something to us. They're trying to tell us something. And I'm trying to understand what it is they're telling us. >> I'm going to speak -- >> I was asking -- I was asking kind of a both in the sense that this would be stamped on the -- the APA rating thing would be stamped on the wood, which is the picture up here. But can we interpret this? Is this 220C? As opposed to -- is that the span rating? >> I'm going to go with span rating for that, but I don't know -- I can't because it says that it's -- indicate all of them there. But the rate -- the grade specifically says it's rated for sheeting. So, you know, it's -- that panel that would have that -- whether it's OSB or sheet apply would be graded -- rated for sheeting and construction using as a sheeting product. >> So if -- if I understand this and maybe, John, there's the -- the picture of the -- of the plank -- >> Yes. >> -- in 24 is lumber. >> Yes. >> The stamps that would appear on the back of paneling or plywood would be 25. Is that a correct? >> Yeah. >> This would be what's on lumber. This would be what would be on paneling or plywood? >> I think lumber is a more generalized term that includes a beam like this or plywood. >> Okay. >> It could include everything. So a general term, specific term. >> So a -- so a 724 could be a -- a two by six? >> Yes. >> But 725 would be a panel sheeting. A piece of plywood. >> Okay. >> Half-inch plywood or something. >> Okay. So now this brings me to my final question. Okay? >> Wow. [ Laughter ] >> You weren't supposed to hear that. [ Laughter ] >> It brings me to my final question. So when I look at that, am I looking at strength and appearance or am I looking at strength and durability in 724? >> Okay. >> Right there? >> Yes. 724. >> I can't tell you which one specifically is the grade because I just did not -- on that stand. This one listed out specifically, but I couldn't tell you exactly what this part right here or this part right here, the KDHT, I'm not sure what that stands for. So I can't look at that and tell you what the grade is on that stand. I just don't have enough knowledge to answer that question. The 22 is probably strength. Whatever that is. >> Okay. >> Whatever the span rating is. >> Thank you. >> Span ratings are different for roof, ceiling, and subflooring because roof supports are often spaced wider apart than floor supports. So. >> Thank you. Thank you for taking my time -- taking the time. >> Now do you know anymore about how your house is built? >> No. I'm just trying to answer this question. I'm trying to get there. >> I'm with you. All right. There is a motion on the floor to accept B and C as acceptable answers. Are we ready to vote? >> Yes. >> All in favor of accepting B and C, say aye. Opposed? >> Nay. >> Nay. So the motion fails. >> Let's go the other direction. >> All right. >> I'll make a motion that we sustain the key. >> I'll second. Any other discussion? Now we turn it around and rediscuss. >> I'm done. I'm good. >> No. I don't have -- I mean, that's the -- we need to give chance. >> Oh. Absolutely. Absolutely. >> To me, I think that strength and durability are synonyms. They're the same thing. And it's saying here that it can be -- the lumber can be graded, evaluated based on strength and appearance. Therefore, strength and durability are the same. Can lumber be, like someone said, and appearance not be taken into consideration and still be graded, still be evaluated? Yes, I think it can. So that's the only reason I would say accept that. >> Okay. Are we ready to vote again? Motion on the floor now. John, do you have something? >> No, no, no. You have to ask me if I was ready, and I'll give you the sign. >> Okay. Motion now on the floor for item 70 is to sustain the key. All in favor, say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? >> Nay. >> Motion carries to sustain the key. All right. Next question is 75. Rhett, since you're here, you get to lead the discussion here. Oh, gosh, I was not prepared for this one. Sorry. I zoned out. 75. Oh, okay. Well, I got good news and bad news. Unfortunately, this will be my last question, but the good news is you won't have to listen to me anymore. That's not an issue. >> It's not an issue for me. >> That's why they pay us the big bucks here, Rhett. >> That's good. You know, okay, so the answer was found on page 243. I had a problem with this question because it said, let's see, the question is which of the following statements is true? Now, we're supposed to choose the best answer for this particular question, and the only thing that are constant in this question is venting for life or venting for fire, and they're in quotations. So my challenge to this question is what are we placing emphasis on? Are we placing emphasis on the fire or the life? And I understand you're supposed to choose the most correct answer, but I'm going to challenge the concept because this is a concept book. Now, I'm very much aware that my colleagues are going to say that this is a direct sentence, word for word, out of the book, okay? However, when you first start that paragraph, when distinguishing between venting for life and venting for fire, the key factor is timing of the ventilation, and I put emphasis on that because this is, I feel like should be a SOP question and not a textbook-driven question because now we're having a test question that is based off of operational standard of our department. The author of this book clearly states repetitively on pages 241, 247, 171, life is the main, life is the main priority when we're sizing up a structure to determine our goal, our outcome. Now, he specifically says in numerous pages that you should locate, confine, and extinguish. Ventilation is never part of this, but what he does say is that ventilation, if drawn into the wrong hands, can injure or kill someone if you're in the middle of the direct flow path of the fire and the opening. So I would urge the department on this to really consider what message they're sending to the candidate because the first thing we're trained not to do is to just go up and ventilate. Our first priority, which the author says, is to locate the victim. And I particularly did not like this question, but that's just my opinion. Okay. Mr. Punches adds to that, "Venting is a task that is priority on any fire. If venting is achieved in a proper fashion, then both fire and life will benefit from the task. Venting is done no matter if it's fire or life." Bad question, bad answers. He said the question's faulty and should be dismissed or should be eliminated just for the record. Mr. Questions of the appellant? I have no questions at this time. Thank you. No questions? Okay. Fire response. We're about to sustain the key. It's a direct quote from the book. First appeal states an opinion does not refer to an actual text from the source material. The second appeal does not really state anything wrong with question or provide an alternate answer based on a text. The key answer is correct. Question for fire? No question of fire at this time. No question. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal, appeals? Casey? Yes, sir. The only thing I would say to this is the book says the key factor is the timing of the ventilation, which statement is true, venting for life should be in as soon as possible is the only one that can be true. To say venting for fire is normally not necessary if venting for life has been successfully executed is not necessarily true, venting for life must be completed before or venting for fire must be completed before venting for life can be initiated is not true because the book states venting for life should obviously begin as soon as possible after the life hazard is recognized and also states venting for fire on the other hand is normally delayed until resources are in place to attack and to say venting for life is usually conducted after all other rescue efforts have failed is not true. Again, the book states venting for life should obviously begin as soon as possible after the life hazard has been is recognized. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, commissioners, I would accept a motion. I'll motion to sustain the key. I'll second discussion seeing none. All in favor of sustaining the key on question 75. All say aye. Motion carries. Next, question 81. Sorry, I'm trying to get my paperwork straight here. As the day progresses, the paperwork gets less organized. All right, 75 to how many are there five appeals? I'm missing appeals, hang on. Okay, there we go. Question 81, five appeals. All right. Mr. Antwiler is not here. Mr. Coyle, is that Mr. Glaze, Jason Glaze? Yeah, I'm here, hang on, can you hear me? I can hear you. There we go. There you are. Welcome. Thank you, how are you all doing? Good. Just want to add to my appeal, the opening up section is a subcategory in the overall section and on page 190, it states overall, in a broad sense, may be considered any action taken to expose hidden fire and ensure its extinguishment. And in the next paragraph from where the question's taken, he states it takes a lot of opening up and a good deal of water to make sure that the fire has been completely extinguished. So being in the overall mindset, I pick D because I don't know of any fire that we're not going to open up, and that's all I got. Okay. Thank you, sir. Jason Owen? No, not here. Well, good. Okay. 81. All right. Mr. Punches says that another answer, D, also says D, media vicinity of the object includes the walls and floor and ceiling around the object, therefore B and D are correct. Mr. Owen says the question is not fully, I can't read his writing. Phrase open up signifies, okay, to open holes in the, what does it say? In the dry area or the drywall to check for extensions? Mr. Coyle says just after a room is knocked down by the hose stream, the first opening should be made near already existing openings through the plaster board or plaster. Public states that openings, penetrations should be the first to be opened up. Mr. Atwiler says question doesn't give a clear picture of what is going on in the room. If it mentioned if the walls had fire, smoke or other problems, then A should have been the correct answer, but the vague question left it up in the air. We recently went to the mattress fire, was ordered to open the drywall to check for extension. So he said answer A should also be given for credit, as did Mr. Coyle, as did all the other appellants. No, A and D along with B has the correct answer. Questions of the appellant? Seeing none, fire response. We supposed to sustain the key, B is clearly stated in the text and should be the only accepted answer, answer A is not the correct answer because it states all drywall. The text does not state all, it basically said start with the penetrations affected directly by the fire and move away until you reach clear bays. Answer D is also false because it includes the word always, again the text does not state that it needs to always be opened up. Question of fire? No questions at this time. Okay. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeals? Seeing no one, Casey, where is Casey? I guess my argument to say is the knockdown fire doesn't say that it's near drywall. It doesn't say that there's floor space involved and those answers state that it must include all drywall penetrations, which isn't always the case. If you have a couch in the center of a room and it's not fully involved, just a part of it was on fire, there wasn't a flash, you're not necessarily going to tear up the rest of the room because it was localized to that one piece. So I understand where the confusion might have come from through some assumption, but I would say that it can be confined to the immediate vicinity of the object and the object itself prevents unnecessary damage and overhaul. Thank you. Anyone else? Cole? Just real quick, I know you're probably ready to be done, just like all of us. Adding to what the department said in regards to question A, if on page 197 it says as long as you keep finding charred wood, keep pulling, so it doesn't necessarily have to be all of the drywall penetrations in the room. It's just whatever you keep finding, you keep going and after that you're done. Anyone else? Commissioners, I would entertain a motion. I would motion to sustain the key. I'll second. Okay, motion second. Any discussion? I think just like what Ms. Hilliard said, the all statement and the all wave statements, I think those kind of through A and B, the way, and then just reading this book, it's kind of scary because I didn't know that fire could stay somewhere and then just part back up later. So now I'm a little scared. Thanks. She's a newbie. Yeah, sometimes reading all this, you kind of go, why am I even alive? It's kind of scary sometimes, isn't it? I'm so glad that you guys are saying, like if there's anything that is not on fire, but it's just charred that you keep going, I mean, I would rather you destroy that than if I were to come back later. Absolutely. All right, any other discussion? All in favor of sustaining the key for 81, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, motion carries. Question 88, right? And that's Mr. Punches. All right. Motion deals with as soon as the first report is received that a firefighter is down, three things should immediately happen, one of which is, A, the chief of the fire department must be notified, B, all on scene personnel must be removed from the building, C, an ALS ambulance must immediately be called to the scene if not ready on the scene, and D, water being pumped into the building must be immediately stopped. Mr. Punches says there are numerous things that will happen at the report of a firefighter down. I believe other answers are acceptable with this question. The key to answer C is not the best answer because an ALS unit will be on the scene of any working structure fire. I won't open it to questions of the appellant, so fire response. We vote to sustain the key, C is clearly stated in the text, A, B, and D are not, appeal is an opinion and not based on the text. Questions of fire? I have no questions of fire. Okay. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Hearing none, commissioners, I would entertain a motion. I motion that we sustain the key. Motion second, discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of sustaining the key, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 91, Chris Phillips, I haven't seen him. Okay. Commission says a building that has masonry exterior walls which support the floors and the roof structure along with the interior structural and nonstructural members all constructed of wood would be considered and the answers are type two, type four, type one, type three. The key answer is D, type three, construction. And the appeal says questions should be eliminated. The question is misworded. Fire response or fire decision? Sustain the key. Answer clearly stated in the text cannot be A or B since it has noncombustible members. Answer D is also false because the question does not mention heavy timber. Questions of fire? Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Commissioners, I would entertain a motion. Question for 91. I'll motion that we sustain the key on question 91. I'll second that motion. Okay. Motion moved and seconded. Discussion? Seeing none. Hearing none. All in favor of sustaining the key of 91, say aye. Aye. Okay. Question 92. Museums, courtrooms, restaurants and conference rooms are all examples of A, business occupancies, B, assembly occupancies, C, mercantile occupancies, D, educational occupancies. The keyed answer is B, assembly occupancies. Mr. Coyle says another answer A is correct in addition to the keyed answer. Both answers should be considered. According to the text, the determining factor to classify an occupancy as either business or assembly is the number of occupants. More or less than 50. The question does not provide this information. Therefore, both business and assembly could be the appropriate classification. Page 48 lists examples of business occupancies and includes courthouses. Fire response. Let's sustain the key. Answer B is clear as stated in the text. Under this example, the text is stating that assembly occupancies utilize rooms and buildings primarily for gatherings of 50 or more for specific reasons like deliberations, worship, entertainment, eating, et cetera, and a single room or multiple rooms with occupancies 50 and over each. In contrast, business occupancies are buildings or areas that are used primarily for transaction of business other than mercantile. House rooms, museums, et cetera, are not primarily used for transaction of business. I'm looking for his comment about courthouses being business occupancies. He says on page 48. Go ahead. I was just going to say the same thing. It says it on page 48. Okay. Questions of fire. I guess because it does say on page 48, why would we not consider looking at both of those? Community occupancies is the best answer that includes all of the examples. A small city might have a courthouse that only lets 20 people in, but a larger city like Denton County courthouse, a much larger assembly area. I'm sorry. The context of the question to include all examples would be. The question says courtrooms, not courthouses. So a courthouse would contain numerous courtrooms. So as long as it says courtrooms, it would be in the assembly occupancy. Correct? It also says government offices, is that not the same as a court room? But each individual office, well, museums, courtrooms, restaurants, and conference rooms are examples of. That's the question. Casey, did you have something? Yes, I was going to point out what you did about there being a difference in courtrooms and courthouses. And maybe to help a little bit on page 52, it talks about mixed occupancy. It's a multiple occupancy where the occupancies are intermingled. Each portion of the building is classified according to its use. So maybe that's where some of the confusion comes in. But it does specify museums, courtrooms, restaurants, and conference rooms as assembly, and then the government city, musel buildings, and courthouses as business. So it differs it in the book. Okay, I'm here, I was just going to Casey pretty much said what I was going to say. I mean, nowhere in the book else does it say talking about those what one, two, three, those four areas referring to anything other than assembly occupancies. So okay, anyone else? I would entertain a motion commissioners. I make a motion that we sustain the key on question 92. I'll second it then we can make the decision. Now it's in play. Discussion? No, I'm satisfied with what Casey said about the multiple occupancies within the same building. I'm fine with that. Any other discussion? All in favor of sustain the key for question 92? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Unopposed? Okay, motion carries. Well, gentlemen, Mr. Baines stole my thunder at the beginning of the meeting, but you probably have forgotten that since, if I say gentlemen, I'm sorry, Casey, folks, you've probably forgotten it by now. We've all slept since then. Oh, I'm kidding. I say this every time and I know you probably get tired of it and it's like, okay, I know it's coming, but truly, you guys, especially now, but always have done things that none of us want to do and you have spent literally hundreds of hours trying to be better in helping this community and saving our lives and in saving our property. And we as a community probably don't say thank you nearly enough that you would take the time to read all of these books and try to memorize them. And maybe you didn't get all of your appeals done today, but you're already two steps ahead because you've begun the process of being better and being a better fireman or firewoman and that is what really matters. And I just want to salute you and thank you for all you do for us when you run toward things that we're all running away from. And I mean that sincerely. I say it every time, but I still mean it. Thank you so much for all you do. Thank you. All right. Thank you all for everything, you know, sitting through this. This is my first time, so I appreciate y'all and it's been a great experience. It's been, I'm glad it's over, so I'll have y'all stay safe out there and everybody, everybody learns by doing this. All colleagues in the fire department, I'm glad this is over and I'm happy for everybody. So thank y'all. You all stay safe. Be careful. Okay. Thank you guys so much. Thank you. a minute. I'm going to read yours. Yes, sustain key, 11 sustain, 15 sustain, 17 sustain, sustain 20, withdrew the appeal, sustain the key of 32, sustain the key of 34, sustain, 42 sustain, 44 sustain, 47 A and B, 53 except A and B, sustain 54, sustain 70, sustain 70, 75, I'm sorry, sustain 81, sustain 88, sustain 91, sustain 92, okay. That way we know that we're all on the same page. Commissioners, did you hear anything different from that? Last item, last item on the agenda is to date for the next civil service commission meeting. Well, we have what, captain and bat chief appeals coming up. How many of those do we have? 25 appeals for those two. Wow. Okay, combined. All right. So we have 25 appeals. So what kind of what I'm going to ask this way and then what kind of pressure are we under? Do we have some holes that we need to fill? Okay. Okay. I don't know if you heard him or not. June 19th, there will be vacancies in the captain battalion chief ranks. Therefore, we probably need to have a meeting. Oh, yeah, you. That's Mr. Chair, let me ask a question. Okay. Hang on. It impacts the date. Hang on, John. Hi, everybody. I was trying to stay off with you. So we have we need to have two meetings because we need to hear the appeals and we also need to certify the list. We're limited on our days. We can do that because we need to have it done by June 19th. So the only two days that this room is available is June 10th and June 15th. So that solves the problem, right? If y'all are all three available, yes, it does. Was everybody available on the 10th and 15th, but especially, I mean, we could do a zoom if we had to, couldn't we? No, it has to be public. Yeah, but I mean, we could do just the three of us zoom. We wouldn't have to do must see TV, right? Okay, because it's a public meeting, we have to do the zoom. We have to do the TV and everything. So all right. What's your availability on the 10th and the 15th? Let me get my calendar and make sure all of this is like 25 appeals means we're probably need two hours to an hour and a half hours. They know better. Three hours. All right. So we need three hours. Okay, maybe we can do that the day we approve the list. If we made on the 10th for the appeals, 15th, we approve the list when we have some, when we have time to do that discussion. Okay. She's talking about another meeting in July also, and that's, I mean, that's okay. At present, I have no commitments on either day. The only question I have is let's try to get an idea of what kind of time commitment we're looking at so I can kind of preempt any future attempts to take my time away from civil service commission. We're looking probably at three hours on the 10th for the appeals. All the appeals would be on the 10th and then the certification would be on the 15th. It has to be on the 15th. We will also, I assume we'll approve the certification list of today's meeting of the 10th and then the 15th will just be for the battalion chief and the captains. So we need, let's say three hours. On the 10th or on the 15th? Okay, three hours, okay, okay. Any particular hour? Strike your fancy, let's do it in the afternoon. Yes, ma'am. Are you asking permission or just exercising? Oh no, I was counting the hours. If we started at nine, would you like afternoon better? We could do nine. We can knock it out. How about you? Nine's fine with me. Okay. So let's say nine to noon on the 10th of June. Okay. Then the 15th, we will decide on the time or do we need to set a time so you can reserve the room? I'm asking my room observers. Can we go ahead and set a time on the 15th then? That one would probably be a relatively short meeting, I'm thinking. So maybe let's say an hour just to, we probably will need five minutes, but you never know. That's a Monday, so let's do 10. Mondays are a little hard for me, so I could probably do a little later if you don't mind. How much is, like an hour later? Would 11 work? Yeah, 11 would give me a chance to deal with all the fires that we have to deal with on Monday mornings. Bad, bad. How about 11? Lillian, does that work for you? Yeah, that's fine. All right. So we're doing nine o'clock on the 10th and 11 o'clock on the 15th. That way they can get the room reserved. All right. Yes, ma'am. Okay, Stephanie's asking about the July date for the civil service rules discussion. So back to the calendars. Well, do we need to check? We probably need to check availability of this room or in room like it. Is that true? No, when you say the rules, is that what we're alluding to today as far as kind of maybe some revising of how we approach things? Stephanie, they can't hear you. You're on mute. Okay. What she just said. We're going to cut the feed.