WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:13.760
 Good morning. I'd like to call the May 27th meeting of the Civil Service Commission to

00:00:13.760 --> 00:00:26.160
 order at 1145. First order of business is introduction of guests. I think that we determined

00:00:26.160 --> 00:00:30.360
 that there are no guests. The stars of the show are the ones of the others of you that

00:00:30.360 --> 00:00:37.240
 are sitting here. So we'll move on to our next, which is public comments. Again, I don't

00:00:37.240 --> 00:00:44.120
 see anyone. We have no one registered for public comments. So we will move on with that.

00:00:44.120 --> 00:00:49.960
 Next order of business is to consider the minutes of the January 22nd meeting. Commissioners,

00:00:49.960 --> 00:00:56.080
 I would ask you to take a look at those and then entertain them. I would entertain a motion

00:00:56.080 --> 00:01:05.640
 that we approve the minutes of the January 22nd meeting. Don't forget you have to raise

00:01:05.640 --> 00:01:34.280
 your hand first. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I move to approve the minutes. John? I second

00:01:34.280 --> 00:01:45.640
 it. Any in discussion, is there any corrections, amendments, anything? Hearing none, all in

00:01:45.640 --> 00:01:55.440
 favor of approval of the minutes, say aye. Aye. All right. Next order of business is

00:01:55.440 --> 00:02:05.840
 the appeals for the driver exam. So are you going to do, do you have something to say

00:02:05.840 --> 00:02:15.160
 to them first or? Okay. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're glad to have you here today. It's a

00:02:15.160 --> 00:02:22.160
 little different, obviously, for it feels a lot different than it normally does. We

00:02:22.160 --> 00:02:29.460
 have a number of appeals. I want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to express their

00:02:29.460 --> 00:02:37.680
 concerns in the sense of information to provide to us, for us to consider as commissioners.

00:02:37.680 --> 00:02:47.080
 On the other hand, since there are a number of participants, if there is something that's

00:02:47.080 --> 00:02:52.360
 already been said, I would appreciate it. I think the other commissioners also would

00:02:52.360 --> 00:02:59.000
 appreciate your not saying it again. That would include the ones who actually filed

00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:07.720
 the appeals. We want to hear as much new information as we can to make sure that we make the best

00:03:07.720 --> 00:03:15.080
 possible decision for your, for this outcome for you. But as I say, we don't need to do

00:03:15.080 --> 00:03:27.520
 a lot of extra. As I think has been explained, we will have, let you raise your hands and

00:03:27.520 --> 00:03:35.680
 you will be unmuted and give you a chance to speak. The first, so are there any questions

00:03:35.680 --> 00:03:47.160
 on that? Okay. I'll try to make sure I can read all the names off the appeals. We're

00:03:47.160 --> 00:04:01.000
 ready. The first appeal is for question two. We have Mr. Friend and Mr. Punches. I saw

00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:21.640
 Jeremy. There he is. Jeremy? Are you? Can he? Would you unmute Jeremy? Someone unmute

00:04:21.640 --> 00:04:45.040
 Jeremy Punches, please. You're still muted. Yep. There you go now. Now you go. I have

00:04:45.040 --> 00:05:00.000
 nothing further than what's in my appeal that I wrote there. Okay. And Mr. Friend. Okay.

00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:06.880
 Basically and the commissioners have seen these. I assume I should probably read the

00:05:06.880 --> 00:05:22.960
 appeal in. Should I read the appeal? Mr. Punches' appeal or did? Okay. I believe question number

00:05:22.960 --> 00:05:27.060
 two, believe it has multiple correct answers. According to the material in the book, the

00:05:27.060 --> 00:05:36.500
 fire, what is the instrument safety officer is delegated on any working incident, therefore

00:05:36.500 --> 00:05:42.820
 extreme weather, wildland, target hazards all have an ISO. Made a situation like the

00:05:42.820 --> 00:05:49.960
 ISO be ready in place due to the situation we already have required. And that's basically

00:05:49.960 --> 00:05:57.840
 the same. Mr. Punches says A, B, and D are also correct, that all answers are correct.

00:05:57.840 --> 00:06:06.320
 Mr. Friend says that another answer, A, is correct. The question is what scenario listed

00:06:06.320 --> 00:06:14.000
 below would warrant automatic delegation of an incident safety officer, extreme weather,

00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:20.520
 wildland interface fire, firefighter down, missing or injured. And D is target hazards.

00:06:20.520 --> 00:06:29.200
 The correct answer is a firefighter down. And that is in the fire safety officer manual.

00:06:29.200 --> 00:06:57.720
 Mr. Punches, did I do you justice? >> Got it. >> Good. >> Okay. Okay. We are

00:06:57.720 --> 00:07:05.880
 going to ask, remind you to unmute yourself as you speak. Don't everybody speak at once.

00:07:05.880 --> 00:07:18.760
 It gets to be really chaotic. Okay. Okay. You probably didn't hear that. If you'll ask

00:07:18.760 --> 00:07:28.360
 for permission, I will address you to let you speak. So. Commissioners, do you have

00:07:28.360 --> 00:07:39.680
 any questions of Mr. Punches at this point? You can shake your head if you'd like or say

00:07:39.680 --> 00:07:43.840
 yes or no. >> I don't have any questions at this time.

00:07:43.840 --> 00:07:53.120
 >> Thank you. >> Okay. Commissioner Carrillo? Okay. Fire

00:07:53.120 --> 00:08:00.280
 response. >> We would like to sustain the key as stated

00:08:00.280 --> 00:08:05.120
 in the reference. Furthermore, page 46, the book clearly has answers A, B, and D as an

00:08:05.120 --> 00:08:10.840
 automatic response for an ISO and not an automatic delegation. The automatic response is defined

00:08:10.840 --> 00:08:14.680
 as the safety officer responding to the incident and available if the incident commander needs

00:08:14.680 --> 00:08:19.180
 them to handle the incident safety officer function at the incident. Automatic delegation

00:08:19.180 --> 00:08:23.400
 is that if the incident safety officer is on scene, then they are automatically delegated

00:08:23.400 --> 00:08:36.280
 to a specific safety function for specific events. >> Commissioners, questions of fire?

00:08:36.280 --> 00:08:44.400
 I have no questions. Thank you. >> I guess I'm trying to understand so if

00:08:44.400 --> 00:08:52.680
 the -- if the ISO is on the scene, then they automatically become delegated to serve a

00:08:52.680 --> 00:09:01.760
 special function? I'm a little -- because I'm trying to read the appeals and I'm trying

00:09:01.760 --> 00:09:04.840
 to read the officer response and then what was in the book. So I guess I'm trying to

00:09:04.840 --> 00:09:12.920
 understand if an ISO is sent to the scene, does that automatically make them the automatically

00:09:12.920 --> 00:09:27.280
 delegated person to deal with whatever emergency is happening? Or can a person -- or can an

00:09:27.280 --> 00:09:33.520
 ISO be sent to the scene and not be put in place as the automatic delegation?

00:09:33.520 --> 00:09:44.080
 >> So the automatic delegation and the firefighter down would say yes, we are creating this position

00:09:44.080 --> 00:09:49.960
 in our incident. This safety officer is automatically getting assigned in our incident. All these

00:09:49.960 --> 00:09:53.560
 other incidents may not require an incident safety officer.

00:09:53.560 --> 00:09:58.760
 >> They could. >> Could. But the only one that would automatically

00:09:58.760 --> 00:10:04.640
 happen is the firefighter down, missing or injured.

00:10:04.640 --> 00:10:16.040
 >> Okay. >> May I enter a check here?

00:10:16.040 --> 00:10:23.240
 >> Yes, sir. >> At the bottom of page 45, there's that

00:10:23.240 --> 00:10:33.160
 section firefighter down, missing or injured. And in that paragraph, it says one main part

00:10:33.160 --> 00:10:40.240
 of the plan should be the immediate appointment of an ISO if not already assigned. So I think

00:10:40.240 --> 00:10:50.280
 the Commissioner Carrillo had asked about -- in one of our previous questions, I thought

00:10:50.280 --> 00:10:57.720
 this was the sentence that answered it for me, is that there needs to be an appointment

00:10:57.720 --> 00:11:04.360
 of an ISO if one is not already assigned. But if one was already assigned, then there

00:11:04.360 --> 00:11:15.480
 wouldn't be a need to assign one. >> When I read that, I also read that as

00:11:15.480 --> 00:11:21.520
 to say that even if there's an ISO on scene doing something else, if there is a manned

00:11:21.520 --> 00:11:29.900
 down situation, they would immediately become that ISO and leave other things to other people

00:11:29.900 --> 00:11:39.920
 until that emergency is cleared. Am I reading too much into that?

00:11:39.920 --> 00:11:46.520
 >> I think that's the basic general idea, yes, that the only thing in that list that

00:11:46.520 --> 00:11:51.320
 automatically is going to get an incident safety officer assigned because of this incident

00:11:51.320 --> 00:11:56.280
 is that situation, the down firefighter was injured. Everything else is at the discretion

00:11:56.280 --> 00:12:02.520
 of the incident commander. >> May I make one last comment, please?

00:12:02.520 --> 00:12:10.320
 >> Yes, sir. >> I would simply like to say to all of the

00:12:10.320 --> 00:12:16.840
 officers here today, I greatly appreciate the scholarship that all of you undertake

00:12:16.840 --> 00:12:25.720
 to go for these promotions. I'm a CPA, and I don't deal with this normally. This is a

00:12:25.720 --> 00:12:33.080
 lot of information, and my hat's off to you for your efforts to digest this. I mean, this

00:12:33.080 --> 00:12:40.040
 is a lot to remember under test situations, and so I applaud all of you. I just wanted

00:12:40.040 --> 00:12:52.200
 to say that I did my best, and if I err, it's because I couldn't grasp everything, but we

00:12:52.200 --> 00:12:57.240
 try our very best to be accurate and not cavalier in answering any of these questions. So I wanted

00:12:57.240 --> 00:13:02.920
 to know both about our respect and that we try very hard to make the right decision.

00:13:02.920 --> 00:13:09.360
 So thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Baines. We certainly

00:13:09.360 --> 00:13:16.440
 agree. That's my speech for the end, but you're right. We're trying our best to help you guys.

00:13:16.440 --> 00:13:23.320
 We know where you are. We follow you guys all the way through the process. Is there

00:13:23.320 --> 00:13:27.080
 anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

00:13:27.080 --> 00:13:37.400
 Greg? >> If I may have a moment?

00:13:37.400 --> 00:13:40.960
 >> Yes. >> I would just like to ask the department,

00:13:40.960 --> 00:13:46.160
 in your response to the appeal, you essentially gave a definition for automatic response.

00:13:46.160 --> 00:13:53.280
 An automatic delegation. Was that from the material, or is that something that -- where

00:13:53.280 --> 00:14:14.940
 did that come from? >> I can't answer that. I don't know where

00:14:14.940 --> 00:14:18.680
 that response came from, specifically. The battalion chief who wrote that response is

00:14:18.680 --> 00:14:40.560
 not in the room. >> Okay. There they are. Shay. Unmute yourselves.

00:14:40.560 --> 00:14:48.440
 >> Hello. So I think where the department got their response, if you look on page 43,

00:14:48.440 --> 00:14:53.960
 at the top left side, automatic ISO response. And whenever you look at the question, it

00:14:53.960 --> 00:15:00.000
 has in quotation marks delegation, which is on page 44, on to page 45, where it says firefighter

00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:07.520
 down missing. So the response is A, B, and D, which gets an automatic ISO response. But

00:15:07.520 --> 00:15:16.360
 the delegation goes on to the next page. You see what I'm talking about? And I think that's

00:15:16.360 --> 00:15:20.460
 where the department got their responses, because it says verbatim in the book that

00:15:20.460 --> 00:15:26.480
 A, B, and D are an automatic ISO response and not delegation. So I agree with the department

00:15:26.480 --> 00:15:37.800
 on sustaining the key. >> Thank you. Ms. Hillard, where are you? There

00:15:37.800 --> 00:15:45.440
 you are. Can't find you on the screen. >> Just to continue on with what Shay was saying,

00:15:45.440 --> 00:15:53.120
 page 44, there is automatic ISO delegation, where it specifies the difference in it, and

00:15:53.120 --> 00:15:57.360
 if you are occasionally caught short or worse, the situation has been handled only to have

00:15:57.360 --> 00:16:02.160
 Murphy show up. In this case, it pays to have a predefined set of circumstances that lead

00:16:02.160 --> 00:16:07.400
 to the automatic delegation of the ISO role where one hasn't been made. Having an SOP

00:16:07.400 --> 00:16:12.640
 that tells the IC that he or she shall delegate the safety function to a qualified ISO under

00:16:12.640 --> 00:16:28.160
 certain conditions is what we mean by automatic delegation. >> Any other? Commissioners, I

00:16:28.160 --> 00:16:42.800
 would entertain a motion on question two. >> I motion that we sustain the key. >> Second.

00:16:42.800 --> 00:16:53.360
 >> Moved and seconded. Question two, to sustain the key. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed?

00:16:53.360 --> 00:17:16.720
 Sustained the key. Next is item seven. Small -- hang on, small desk, a lot of paper. Where

00:17:16.720 --> 00:17:42.540
 are they? Item seven, we have two appellants, Mr. Jones and Mr. Bentley. Mr. Jones, I see

00:17:42.540 --> 00:17:51.800
 you came into my view first. Would you like to present your appeal, please, sir? >> I

00:17:51.800 --> 00:18:00.180
 don't have much more to add than what was said in the rebuttal by the city. I did have

00:18:00.180 --> 00:18:06.400
 two references that I feel like were correct in that we checked vitals. I have a third

00:18:06.400 --> 00:18:19.340
 reference that was a mistake on all part. >> Okay. And Mr. Bentley? >> Yes, sir. >> Do

00:18:19.340 --> 00:18:31.640
 you have anything? Where are you? >> Right now. >> All right. >> Okay. No, just everything

00:18:31.640 --> 00:18:41.080
 I have in the rebuttal is all I have. >> Okay. They both asked that another answer, i.e.,

00:18:41.080 --> 00:19:02.640
 answer D to the question would also be an acceptable answer. Questions of the appellants?

00:19:02.640 --> 00:19:20.440
 I have no questions. >> No questions. >> All right. Fire response. >> We have to sustain

00:19:20.440 --> 00:19:25.320
 the key. The test direction states to pick the best answer. Answer D is an incorrect

00:19:25.320 --> 00:19:30.760
 answer because it states take random vital signs. Vital signs need to be taken on everyone

00:19:30.760 --> 00:19:46.960
 entering rehab, not just at random. Key question is in the text. >> Question of the fire response.

00:19:46.960 --> 00:20:08.400
 >> No questions of fire response. >> No questions. >> Does anyone like to speak in -- against

00:20:08.400 --> 00:20:26.920
 the appeal? Seeing no one. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion on question seven.

00:20:26.920 --> 00:20:47.960
 >> I move to sustain the key. >> I will second that motion. >> Discussion? Hearing none.

00:20:47.960 --> 00:21:04.420
 All in favor of sustaining the key of question seven, say aye. >> Aye. >> Motion carries.

00:21:04.420 --> 00:21:23.680
 Next is question 11. Mr. Bentley and Mr. Jones. >> I have nothing else to add. >> Give

00:21:23.680 --> 00:21:39.260
 us a brief synopsis of what you said. We have it here. Everyone else knows. >> The question

00:21:39.260 --> 00:21:54.260
 was effective incident safety officer understands the relationship of blank to blank. I put environment

00:21:54.260 --> 00:22:04.940
 and exposure. Read my thing right quick. So everything that's on this, equipment safety,

00:22:04.940 --> 00:22:12.340
 building constructions, access, everything pretty much involves our environment and what

00:22:12.340 --> 00:22:17.300
 we're exposed to is kind of where I was leading on to that. So if we don't understand the

00:22:17.300 --> 00:22:25.300
 basics of what we're going against or anything like that to be exposed, what equipment will

00:22:25.300 --> 00:22:41.660
 we need to be safe to? I think it encompasses everything way better. >> Okay. Questions

00:22:41.660 --> 00:22:56.780
 of the appellants? >> I do have a question, please. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, gentlemen.

00:22:56.780 --> 00:23:05.540
 Once again, on page 21, there is a statement underneath station equipment. It's the beginning

00:23:05.540 --> 00:23:15.140
 of the next paragraph. It says the effective ISO understands the relationship of equipment

00:23:15.140 --> 00:23:24.020
 to safety. And that's what I keyed as the reading. I think the other items are important,

00:23:24.020 --> 00:23:30.980
 but that's what I keyed on. And so was there something else that you saw that maybe you

00:23:30.980 --> 00:23:41.260
 thought was a little more of a stronger relationship? >> Yeah. So what I was going with was like

00:23:41.260 --> 00:23:46.540
 so our bunker gear versus it protects us from our heat and everything else. So that's our

00:23:46.540 --> 00:23:53.460
 environment to what we're exposed to. And that's where I was looking at our hazmat suits.

00:23:53.460 --> 00:23:58.260
 They're preventing us from exposures to the environment that we're at any time we go and

00:23:58.260 --> 00:24:04.780
 do a certain task or with anything. Right now, they're doing we wear the mask and everything

00:24:04.780 --> 00:24:10.340
 else for COVID calls and everything like that because it's an exposure in our environment.

00:24:10.340 --> 00:24:16.180
 So I just think it sums up if we don't know what the environment and exposures are we're

00:24:16.180 --> 00:24:23.220
 going into, then we can't really figure out what equipment and safety has to do with that

00:24:23.220 --> 00:24:31.260
 certain task. >> Just to respond to your statement, when

00:24:31.260 --> 00:24:36.460
 you mentioned hazmat or masks, that would be equipment, would it not?

00:24:36.460 --> 00:24:40.580
 >> Yes. >> So when you and kind of going back to that

00:24:40.580 --> 00:24:46.660
 statement, equipment to safety, I think you kind of reinforced that point by your statement

00:24:46.660 --> 00:24:54.660
 about that. You know, in view of the task before you, you always have to make sure you

00:24:54.660 --> 00:25:01.260
 have the right equipment to stay safe in that. >> Yeah, yeah, definitely. But before we go

00:25:01.260 --> 00:25:05.660
 into it, we have to know exactly what environment we're going into.

00:25:05.660 --> 00:25:10.580
 >> I see what you're saying. You have to have kind of an idea, am I going into a smoke field

00:25:10.580 --> 00:25:16.980
 room or am I going into a burning building? >> Yeah, low oxygen. I mean, there's tons

00:25:16.980 --> 00:25:20.980
 of environments that we go into that we've got to figure out what the exposure is because

00:25:20.980 --> 00:25:26.940
 we go in with the wrong equipment and that equipment is worthless to us.

00:25:26.940 --> 00:25:33.140
 >> So and having this conversation, then, so would that statement that's listed here

00:25:33.140 --> 00:25:39.140
 by the department, does that stand where it says understands the relationship of equipment

00:25:39.140 --> 00:25:46.140
 to safety? Do you think that still should be the position of the department or do you

00:25:46.140 --> 00:25:55.220
 think it should differ based on your view? >> My view is A. I see every one of them,

00:25:55.220 --> 00:26:03.660
 but I think A is probably the more beneficial and safety related for us.

00:26:03.660 --> 00:26:10.520
 >> Thank you for your response. >> Mr. Jones, do you have anything to add?

00:26:10.520 --> 00:26:16.420
 >> I have nothing to add. I was coming from the same viewpoint as Craig in relation to

00:26:16.420 --> 00:26:21.620
 environment exposure. >> Just didn't want you to think we forgot

00:26:21.620 --> 00:26:37.620
 the answer. Any other questions of the appellants? Fire response?

00:26:37.620 --> 00:26:41.380
 >> Vote to sustain the key. Information including question and answer comes directly from the

00:26:41.380 --> 00:26:46.860
 text making C the most correct answer. Answer A is not stated in the text and is the opinion

00:26:46.860 --> 00:26:59.120
 of the two appellants should not be considered. >> Questions of fire?

00:26:59.120 --> 00:27:06.380
 >> I did have a question or comment. I don't know which one it is. It's one of them. Let's

00:27:06.380 --> 00:27:15.140
 see. Battalion chief, so in the little dialogue that we had, I could kind of see a little

00:27:15.140 --> 00:27:25.780
 bit of what the gentleman was saying. Would you kind of conclude -- kind of continue that

00:27:25.780 --> 00:27:32.580
 conversation with me a little bit that he and I started?

00:27:32.580 --> 00:27:46.540
 >> I need to measure my words carefully, commissioner. >> Thank you. I'm trying hard to. I want to

00:27:46.540 --> 00:27:52.540
 make sure I give the appellant every benefit of the doubt. That's all I'm trying to do.

00:27:52.540 --> 00:27:54.620
 >> I understand. >> Thank you.

00:27:54.620 --> 00:28:00.620
 >> From the departmental response, I would say the perspective is this. You have to go

00:28:00.620 --> 00:28:05.660
 with the best answer according to the source material. And the source material is clearly

00:28:05.660 --> 00:28:12.380
 stated almost word-for-word. And everything else would just be a matter of opinion at

00:28:12.380 --> 00:28:19.820
 this point. I don't know if that clears it up any more for you, commissioner, or?

00:28:19.820 --> 00:28:37.800
 >> Let me respond in this way. So let's say that the -- and when a test -- when a person

00:28:37.800 --> 00:28:43.820
 is taking a test, in their preparation, are they just given the books or are they given

00:28:43.820 --> 00:28:52.500
 some kind of idea of what to emphasize, what you're looking for, are -- you know, how does

00:28:52.500 --> 00:28:58.340
 that work? How does that work? >> They're given the book, the source material,

00:28:58.340 --> 00:29:04.340
 and they can be tested over anything from the front cover to the back cover.

00:29:04.340 --> 00:29:20.700
 >> I think if I can jump in, I think that's the hard part. Because in reading the second

00:29:20.700 --> 00:29:27.620
 appellant on page 177 and 178, it talks about the environmental integrity, which could either

00:29:27.620 --> 00:29:33.300
 go towards A or it could go towards D, the building construction. And it talks about,

00:29:33.300 --> 00:29:37.840
 you know, it can use the following terminology. Is it stable? Is it not likely to change?

00:29:37.840 --> 00:29:42.780
 So I think whenever we ask firefighters to read this, are we asking them to memorize

00:29:42.780 --> 00:29:47.820
 certain one-liners or are we asking them to read the entire thing and to use their critical

00:29:47.820 --> 00:29:54.620
 thinking skills to be able to apply? And so from what I'm understanding and what I'm hearing,

00:29:54.620 --> 00:29:57.980
 we're asking them to memorize. And so if we're asking them to memorize, then I would sustain

00:29:57.980 --> 00:30:02.020
 the key. But if we're asking them to think critically, then I could see where the argument

00:30:02.020 --> 00:30:12.380
 could be made for some of these other answers. I think for myself, when I'm reading the appeals,

00:30:12.380 --> 00:30:15.980
 I already know what everyone has written on the appeals. But if you can make some other

00:30:15.980 --> 00:30:22.300
 kind of point to explain to us how you arrived at your decision, it would -- for me, at least,

00:30:22.300 --> 00:30:27.980
 it would help me better understand where you're coming from if you say more than just I already

00:30:27.980 --> 00:30:32.660
 know what was on my appeal. At least that would be helpful for me.

00:30:32.660 --> 00:30:38.980
 >> I would be helpful for me as well. Thank you.

00:30:38.980 --> 00:30:45.140
 >> You bring up the question that's been going on for at least 15 years as to whether it's

00:30:45.140 --> 00:30:56.020
 the verbatim out of the book or whether it's the making a decision at the moment. And that's

00:30:56.020 --> 00:31:01.540
 always the difficult part of it. Because the book may not say it exactly like the moment

00:31:01.540 --> 00:31:08.020
 is. And that's always the problem. But I agree with you that, you know, what we're looking

00:31:08.020 --> 00:31:13.620
 for -- we've read your appeals. What we're looking for is additional -- well, thought

00:31:13.620 --> 00:31:19.700
 behind how the appeal happened or additional information.

00:31:19.700 --> 00:31:31.200
 >> I do have to say that because the appellants are asking for A to be the only one that's

00:31:31.200 --> 00:31:36.460
 considered, I think that helps me lead towards just sustaining the key because an equal argument

00:31:36.460 --> 00:31:41.740
 could be made for D in my opinion. If we're going to try to justify that A could be an

00:31:41.740 --> 00:31:47.580
 answer, then also D could be an answer. So for that reason, I kind of lean towards sustaining

00:31:47.580 --> 00:31:58.180
 the key and going verbatim what's in the book. Unless someone can tell me why those two are

00:31:58.180 --> 00:32:00.140
 different. >> Okay.

00:32:00.140 --> 00:32:12.860
 >> Let's save that list. Cassie? >> The only thing that I would have to say

00:32:12.860 --> 00:32:18.300
 against the argument is they're treating environment and exposure almost interchangeably instead

00:32:18.300 --> 00:32:24.260
 of saying there's a relationship between the two. So there is a relationship to understand

00:32:24.260 --> 00:32:30.700
 between equipment and safety kind of as was stated earlier as far as understanding the

00:32:30.700 --> 00:32:37.820
 correct equipment in order to have a proper safety. But to say understand the environment,

00:32:37.820 --> 00:32:44.900
 to understand the exposure, I think is kind of using those two interchangeably because

00:32:44.900 --> 00:32:55.180
 your environment can be an exposure versus there being a relationship between the two.

00:32:55.180 --> 00:33:08.380
 >> I hope that makes sense in what I said. >> Okay. Who else? Greg? Where's Greg? Oh.

00:33:08.380 --> 00:33:11.020
 >> If I may? >> Yes. There you are.

00:33:11.020 --> 00:33:19.180
 >> So when we took this test, it became painfully obvious very early on that this style or theme

00:33:19.180 --> 00:33:25.500
 of test was not necessarily testing comprehension but more essentially like the council member

00:33:25.500 --> 00:33:31.820
 said, the ability to memorize the material. Of the 21 questions that are being appealed

00:33:31.820 --> 00:33:40.500
 today, 17 of them are word for word from the text. And actually nine of the department's

00:33:40.500 --> 00:33:50.180
 responses were it's a direct quote from the text. So knowing that and seeing the test,

00:33:50.180 --> 00:33:54.840
 once you realize that's what they're asking for, you answer accordingly. I may not always

00:33:54.840 --> 00:33:59.980
 agree with that, but that is what the test is looking for. It became very obvious. I

00:33:59.980 --> 00:34:08.140
 would say 90% of the questions on the test were word for word out of the book. So I don't

00:34:08.140 --> 00:34:14.660
 disagree with Mr. Bentley, but it's hard to argue with the fact that it is word for word

00:34:14.660 --> 00:34:21.980
 out of the text. >> Okay. Who else? Mr. Hudson?

00:34:21.980 --> 00:34:28.860
 >> There you are. >> Yes, sir. So I did not write an appeal

00:34:28.860 --> 00:34:33.940
 for this question, but is there any way am I allowed to speak on behalf of Bentley and

00:34:33.940 --> 00:34:41.420
 add to what he has already previously said? >> Yes, as long as it's brief.

00:34:41.420 --> 00:34:47.260
 >> Okay. I believe a lot of the stuff that he's getting comes from chapter nine, which

00:34:47.260 --> 00:34:53.860
 is titled reading firefighters and deals exactly with environment and exposure and the amount

00:34:53.860 --> 00:35:03.180
 of each and how it relies on or relates to everything that ISO would do. And that's where

00:35:03.180 --> 00:35:07.100
 I think he's getting most of that, and I would have to agree with him that question A would

00:35:07.100 --> 00:35:12.300
 also be a possibility. >> Answer A.

00:35:12.300 --> 00:35:19.780
 >> Yes, sir. >> Who is?

00:35:19.780 --> 00:35:27.180
 >> Rhett. >> Can everybody hear me?

00:35:27.180 --> 00:35:33.220
 >> Yes, sir. >> I'm having a hard time trying to access

00:35:33.220 --> 00:35:38.860
 some of the names of the commissioners, but I believe her name was Lillian, was asking

00:35:38.860 --> 00:35:47.620
 about if the department is trying to gear the testes of memorization versus critical

00:35:47.620 --> 00:35:54.100
 thinking. I'd like to hear the response from the department of what the goal is for the

00:35:54.100 --> 00:35:59.240
 testee, because as mentioned earlier from the commissioners, there's a ton of material,

00:35:59.240 --> 00:36:07.460
 and a lot of the material overlaps each other in the book, which is very critical on the

00:36:07.460 --> 00:36:15.060
 testee to memorize and try to determine what it is we're looking for as a department in

00:36:15.060 --> 00:36:21.420
 a goal direction. Keeping in mind, we have standard operating procedures that weren't

00:36:21.420 --> 00:36:29.780
 even on here, so I'd like to hear that, because we're only given a certain amount of time

00:36:29.780 --> 00:36:36.540
 to go over this material from the time it's dismissed to us to the time the test is actually

00:36:36.540 --> 00:36:48.680
 taken. I know that in other departments, you can focus on key areas of each book, basically,

00:36:48.680 --> 00:36:52.140
 so I'd like to hear the response of the department.

00:36:52.140 --> 00:36:58.780
 Mr. Remmer, I don't want to shut you down. It is kind of beyond the thing that we're

00:36:58.780 --> 00:37:05.740
 doing today. That's a longer discussion that I don't disagree that I agree with you that

00:37:05.740 --> 00:37:13.060
 it needs to happen. I'm just not sure that today is the opportunity or the chance to

00:37:13.060 --> 00:37:20.900
 get into that, but I think it's a question, as I said earlier, that has been floating

00:37:20.900 --> 00:37:26.860
 around ever since I've been on the commission, and I think Moses and I were together at that

00:37:26.860 --> 00:37:35.860
 first meeting, so it's been a while that this whole issue has been discussed, so we probably

00:37:35.860 --> 00:37:40.860
 need to do that at another time, if you don't mind. I agree with you that the discussion

00:37:40.860 --> 00:37:56.580
 needs to happen, but this is just not the place for that. Okay, Kathy?

00:37:56.580 --> 00:38:06.300
 I know that they have brought up chapter nine. I've looked through it, and I don't see exposures

00:38:06.300 --> 00:38:12.460
 mentioned in it. I only see environment, so I was hoping that the appellants would give

00:38:12.460 --> 00:38:22.660
 us where they're finding it in the book, if they're going to cite it.

00:38:22.660 --> 00:38:39.020
 Anyone going to take that one? I don't have a book with me, so I can't look

00:38:39.020 --> 00:38:46.820
 at it. The problem with virtual, right? When I read

00:38:46.820 --> 00:38:52.300
 through this, and I read the appeal, and I understand where people are coming from, but

00:38:52.300 --> 00:39:02.460
 as I look at all of these answers, this is just me talking, of all of the answers, environment,

00:39:02.460 --> 00:39:12.260
 exposure, cost, benefit, equipment, safety, building construction, site access, the one

00:39:12.260 --> 00:39:21.200
 that I'm the most concerned as a citizen of Denton is safety, and out of safety, because

00:39:21.200 --> 00:39:29.480
 of safety, provide equipment that's appropriate, and that's what's made me think that's the

00:39:29.480 --> 00:39:34.960
 right answer. The most important thing of all of those answers

00:39:34.960 --> 00:39:43.460
 is safety, your safety, because you're trying to keep me safe. It's my job to provide you

00:39:43.460 --> 00:39:52.420
 with the equipment that you need to be safe, regardless of all the other things. That's

00:39:52.420 --> 00:39:58.380
 where I was coming from when I came up with my decision on this, which is obviously to

00:39:58.380 --> 00:40:09.900
 sustain the key. That's where I was coming from.

00:40:09.900 --> 00:40:19.060
 Any other comments? I would entertain a motion on question 11.

00:40:19.060 --> 00:40:31.100
 I make a motion that we sustain the key and schedule the time for answering that difficult

00:40:31.100 --> 00:40:40.780
 question. Second. Is there any discussion between the

00:40:40.780 --> 00:40:51.380
 commissioners? I think it was Mr. Coyle who mentioned this.

00:40:51.380 --> 00:40:57.340
 I think that we should know by now how the test is written, and even though the question

00:40:57.340 --> 00:41:00.620
 keeps coming up, but if it's written in that way, and that's the understanding that the

00:41:00.620 --> 00:41:05.740
 people that are taking it know, then it might be able to help us go a little bit faster

00:41:05.740 --> 00:41:15.220
 through some of these, if what the department is expecting, the verbatim answers. That's

00:41:15.220 --> 00:41:23.140
 just my comment for that. Anything else? All in favor of question 11,

00:41:23.140 --> 00:41:34.300
 sustain the key, say aye. Aye. I would say oppose, but I think we all voted.

00:41:34.300 --> 00:41:47.540
 Next is question 15, and that's Mr. Jones. Where'd he go? There you are. You keep moving

00:41:47.540 --> 00:41:54.180
 around on the screen. This is actually the one that had the third

00:41:54.180 --> 00:42:00.060
 reference that was faulty. That's my fault. But incident safety officer pages 172.1 and

00:42:00.060 --> 00:42:08.760
 210, as mentioned in there, they all discuss those very things that I put for answer D.

00:42:08.760 --> 00:42:29.420
 So that's why I feel like that should be an appropriate response as well.

00:42:29.420 --> 00:42:35.820
 Questions of the appellant? Let's see. Mr. Jones, could you show us again

00:42:35.820 --> 00:42:40.860
 where you got that reference on number of first responders?

00:42:40.860 --> 00:42:45.580
 I'm sorry. I don't have that reference in front of me, unfortunately.

00:42:45.580 --> 00:42:56.940
 Okay. All right. Thank you. In your PO, you mentioned page 171, 210,

00:42:56.940 --> 00:43:12.780
 and 350. That 350 is a different book. It shouldn't be considered.

00:43:12.780 --> 00:43:28.140
 Any other questions of the appellant? Department of response?

00:43:28.140 --> 00:43:33.140
 Let's sustain the key. Questions directly from the text. The appeals, two references

00:43:33.140 --> 00:43:37.220
 to the other sections of ISO text are based on opinion of the appellant and not stated

00:43:37.220 --> 00:43:44.820
 in the text. And then the third reference is out of a different book.

00:43:44.820 --> 00:43:53.180
 Questions of fire? No questions from me.

00:43:53.180 --> 00:43:58.180
 None. Anyone like to speak in opposition to the

00:43:58.180 --> 00:44:07.140
 appeal? If I may? Just once again, I would like to point

00:44:07.140 --> 00:44:15.220
 out on page 209, on the left-hand side, under control zones, the question is word for word,

00:44:15.220 --> 00:44:22.700
 beginning with two issues apply. So once again, it is directly out of the text.

00:44:22.700 --> 00:44:28.880
 Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

00:44:28.880 --> 00:44:38.140
 I would entertain a motion on question 15. I motion to sustain the key.

00:44:38.140 --> 00:44:47.460
 I'll second. Any discussion?

00:44:47.460 --> 00:44:52.300
 Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining the key of 15, say aye.

00:44:52.300 --> 00:44:56.680
 Aye. Okay.

00:44:56.680 --> 00:45:03.380
 Next is question 17. Mr. Enos.

00:45:03.380 --> 00:45:10.140
 Yes, sir. Okay.

00:45:10.140 --> 00:45:15.180
 So I agree with the department and with the way that it's keyed. It is out of the book

00:45:15.180 --> 00:45:29.940
 on -- see here, answered. I put a as another answer that should be corrected.

00:45:29.940 --> 00:45:35.580
 On page 622, as it says in my appeal right there, it talks about the maximum loading

00:45:35.580 --> 00:45:41.820
 for any unsupported aerial device occurs at angles of 70 and 80 degrees from horizontal.

00:45:41.820 --> 00:45:48.180
 And as the amount of extension affects the device, the aerial device stress.

00:45:48.180 --> 00:45:53.380
 So the maximum amount of stress on an aerial device, when it says considering long extensions

00:45:53.380 --> 00:45:58.860
 at low angles for aerial loose, places maximum amount of stress on the device.

00:45:58.860 --> 00:46:05.180
 Right there, it says the maximum loading, which would add stress to it, is at a horizontal

00:46:05.180 --> 00:46:09.700
 at 70 to 80 degrees. So that's why I'm saying that A should also

00:46:09.700 --> 00:46:13.220
 be accepted. It's because it says on a different page,

00:46:13.220 --> 00:46:17.300
 it talks about the maximum loading, which refers to the maximum amount of stress that

00:46:17.300 --> 00:46:25.420
 would be placed on the apparatus, the aerial apparatus, at low angles.

00:46:25.420 --> 00:46:31.140
 And then it goes on to say that aerials operating at low angles, at a low angle of elevation

00:46:31.140 --> 00:46:40.620
 and at a long extension are at their weakest operational point or position.

00:46:40.620 --> 00:46:49.340
 And that's all on page 622 on the bottom left side, the two paragraphs that are right there.

00:46:49.340 --> 00:46:56.380
 My question, and I'll go first, because the question is, are there questions for the appellant?

00:46:56.380 --> 00:47:01.120
 What about answer B? Whenever possible, this application should

00:47:01.120 --> 00:47:08.820
 be avoided, which is dealing with the angle. Isn't that true also?

00:47:08.820 --> 00:47:11.180
 Yes, sir. Okay.

00:47:11.180 --> 00:47:16.140
 Yes, sir. So if A is correct and B is correct, what's

00:47:16.140 --> 00:47:21.540
 the only answer to the question that would be correct?

00:47:21.540 --> 00:47:26.580
 I guess when you put it like that, you can say D.

00:47:26.580 --> 00:47:36.060
 Yeah, because it's all of the above. Okay. I think I just stole Collin's show.

00:47:36.060 --> 00:47:41.780
 Any other questions for the appellant? No.

00:47:41.780 --> 00:47:51.740
 Fire response? Sustain the key.

00:47:51.740 --> 00:47:58.780
 I think I just did. Any questions of fire?

00:47:58.780 --> 00:48:03.300
 I have no questions of fire. Okay.

00:48:03.300 --> 00:48:10.640
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

00:48:10.640 --> 00:48:15.520
 Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion on question 17.

00:48:15.520 --> 00:48:19.140
 I motion that we sustain the key for question 17.

00:48:19.140 --> 00:48:22.180
 I'll second. Discussion?

00:48:22.180 --> 00:48:27.420
 Do we need to talk about it? I'm okay.

00:48:27.420 --> 00:48:32.180
 All in favor of sustaining the key of question 17, say aye.

00:48:32.180 --> 00:48:34.940
 Aye. Opposed?

00:48:34.940 --> 00:48:44.200
 None. Next is question 20.

00:48:44.200 --> 00:49:03.860
 To appellants, Mr. Conaway. Have I seen that name and Mr. Gomez?

00:49:03.860 --> 00:49:15.980
 The question says most new aerial ladders are equipped with a telescoping waterway that

00:49:15.980 --> 00:49:21.200
 extends toward the top of the ladder. Generally, the minimum internal diameter

00:49:21.200 --> 00:49:32.560
 of these piping systems is A, 4 inches, B, 5 inches, C, 3 1/2 inches, D, 3 inches.

00:49:32.560 --> 00:49:42.960
 The appellants, Mr. Gomez says, although the question is a direct quote from the text,

00:49:42.960 --> 00:49:47.900
 the information is generalized and nonspecific in nature, therefore, the question should

00:49:47.900 --> 00:49:53.920
 be discarded. Mr. Conaway's appeal says the question worded

00:49:53.920 --> 00:50:02.420
 vaguely, the question says generally and most with that wording, all answers should be accepting.

00:50:02.420 --> 00:50:14.400
 Fire response? Sustained the key, direct quote from the

00:50:14.400 --> 00:50:22.980
 book, none of these other diameters are even mentioned.

00:50:22.980 --> 00:50:31.120
 Questions of fire? Anyone like to speak in opposition to the

00:50:31.120 --> 00:50:42.700
 appeal? I will entertain a motion on question 20.

00:50:42.700 --> 00:50:54.280
 I'll move to sustain the key. I'll second.

00:50:54.280 --> 00:51:03.000
 Seconded. Question 20, to sustain the key. Discussion?

00:51:03.000 --> 00:51:13.000
 The word generally. That usually implies that there is some variety

00:51:13.000 --> 00:51:34.040
 here rather than saying specifically or always. Even though the gentleman did not mention

00:51:34.040 --> 00:51:47.200
 another size, when you use that adverb generally or that description, that does imply some

00:51:47.200 --> 00:51:57.840
 variety of possibilities. John, to go back to the argument that I know

00:51:57.840 --> 00:52:07.520
 Colin is getting ready to make, sorry, Italian chief, direct quote from the book, generally,

00:52:07.520 --> 00:52:16.560
 the minimum internal diameter in this piping is four inches or 100 millimeters.

00:52:16.560 --> 00:52:21.800
 So the book itself uses the term generally. I know what you're saying.

00:52:21.800 --> 00:52:28.680
 I understand. That's what I'm saying.

00:52:28.680 --> 00:52:33.280
 When you use the word generally, you kind of open the door there.

00:52:33.280 --> 00:52:37.080
 But that is the only one that's listed. It's the only one they talk about.

00:52:37.080 --> 00:52:39.320
 I agree. And I did sustain the key.

00:52:39.320 --> 00:52:46.800
 I'm just saying that the word generally there does kind of give you an opening.

00:52:46.800 --> 00:53:00.320
 I can get you to, we'll get you the address of the author and you can, we have a motion

00:53:00.320 --> 00:53:07.240
 in a second. Do we have a, Seth?

00:53:07.240 --> 00:53:10.920
 But the baby's gone. The baby's gone, I put her in her swing.

00:53:10.920 --> 00:53:15.840
 A new fireman in training. Okay, sorry.

00:53:15.840 --> 00:53:23.520
 So I do agree, this is a tough question for you all, especially since it even says generally

00:53:23.520 --> 00:53:33.400
 in the book, would it be an option for you all to take A, B and C, or even just the numbers

00:53:33.400 --> 00:53:49.200
 that are closest to the four inches, since it does say generally?

00:53:49.200 --> 00:53:53.960
 I'm not sure that we can actually go that route. We can either, we'd either have to

00:53:53.960 --> 00:53:59.800
 throw the question out. We're going to have to throw all the other

00:53:59.800 --> 00:54:09.400
 questions out that have to be memorized. And I see on page 567, it makes reference to

00:54:09.400 --> 00:54:15.560
 another type of, like a bed ladder pipe where it talked about three and three and a half

00:54:15.560 --> 00:54:20.760
 inches, but we're talking about the new aerial ladders and that's what's under that telescoping

00:54:20.760 --> 00:54:24.120
 waterway system. And so that one does say by the book and it's

00:54:24.120 --> 00:54:27.160
 the four inches. I could see if someone read this, they would

00:54:27.160 --> 00:54:30.360
 have remembered, oh, they said something about three and three and a half, but it was referencing

00:54:30.360 --> 00:54:34.440
 to something different. So I would, I still will sustain the key

00:54:34.440 --> 00:54:38.200
 on this. The motion is to sustain the key. So that's

00:54:38.200 --> 00:54:44.120
 on the floor. I'm all in favor of sustaining the key.

00:54:44.120 --> 00:55:02.240
 I just know that you, you got some issues there.

00:55:02.240 --> 00:55:10.680
 So do we need to, are we going to vote? Are we done or on this one or where are we?

00:55:10.680 --> 00:55:15.120
 You're muted. Okay. I know I'm talking to Stephanie.

00:55:15.120 --> 00:55:21.960
 Okay, go ahead. It was a procedural question.

00:55:21.960 --> 00:55:27.440
 So sorry, I was just going to say, I think that was a book's way of covering that generally

00:55:27.440 --> 00:55:32.560
 it is the four inches, but some departments can defer from it.

00:55:32.560 --> 00:55:37.480
 So it's not an always option. There are other options to it.

00:55:37.480 --> 00:55:45.680
 It's just the most common. Okay.

00:55:45.680 --> 00:55:54.640
 Motion and second to sustain the key of question 20 is on the floor.

00:55:54.640 --> 00:55:59.640
 I would, all in favor say aye. Aye.

00:55:59.640 --> 00:56:02.520
 Opposed? None.

00:56:02.520 --> 00:56:06.040
 So sustain the key. That was my procedural question.

00:56:06.040 --> 00:56:11.400
 There's a motion on the floor. Next is item 30.

00:56:11.400 --> 00:56:27.520
 Mr. Remmer. Yes, sir. Can you hear me?

00:56:27.520 --> 00:56:29.600
 Yes, sir. Okay.

00:56:29.600 --> 00:56:33.760
 After further looking at this from the time that I made my appeal, I don't have anything

00:56:33.760 --> 00:56:39.720
 to add where I was getting my information. There's not enough information to make a justification

00:56:39.720 --> 00:56:49.040
 for an appeal for this question. So I sustain the key on this.

00:56:49.040 --> 00:56:52.640
 Does that kind of put words in your mouth and you can say no?

00:56:52.640 --> 00:56:56.920
 Does that mean you're withdrawing your appeal? Yes, sir.

00:56:56.920 --> 00:57:00.240
 Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

00:57:00.240 --> 00:57:05.040
 No, I understand. Thank you.

00:57:05.040 --> 00:57:11.360
 Okay. Next is question 32.

00:57:11.360 --> 00:57:20.880
 And that's Mr. Hudson. Yes, sir.

00:57:20.880 --> 00:57:27.000
 I don't really have anything to add, especially after the previous appeals that were kind

00:57:27.000 --> 00:57:34.080
 of going off word for word what the book has stated.

00:57:34.080 --> 00:57:42.480
 Okay. Again, I'm going to ask you and I don't mean to -- it's not my place to put words

00:57:42.480 --> 00:57:45.480
 in your mouth. Do you want to go forward with the appeal?

00:57:45.480 --> 00:57:48.640
 Yes, sir. I'd like to go forward with it.

00:57:48.640 --> 00:57:53.040
 Okay. I think on page 299 of the driver operator

00:57:53.040 --> 00:57:57.960
 book is the reference. Yes.

00:57:57.960 --> 00:58:08.480
 Well, they say 300. 300 is actually where the question -- the

00:58:08.480 --> 00:58:22.560
 answer -- the correct answer came from. But on page 299 is where my argument was.

00:58:22.560 --> 00:58:26.880
 Could you refresh our memory just real briefly about your appeal?

00:58:26.880 --> 00:58:32.280
 It's been a while since I've read it. I don't know about the others, but I've slept

00:58:32.280 --> 00:58:38.800
 since I read these. So the question had to do with a centripetal

00:58:38.800 --> 00:58:45.040
 fire pump and pressure. And I said that on page 299 it states,

00:58:45.040 --> 00:58:50.120
 "The speed of the impeller dictates the amount of pressure that is developed."

00:58:50.120 --> 00:58:55.740
 So I suggested that answer B also be correct in addition to answer D.

00:58:55.740 --> 00:59:17.200
 If -- okay. Are you saying that B is the only correct

00:59:17.200 --> 00:59:21.760
 answer in your appeal? Again, I'm not -- I don't want to put words

00:59:21.760 --> 00:59:24.440
 in your mouth. I'm just asking you the question.

00:59:24.440 --> 00:59:35.360
 No, sir. I'm not saying it is the only -- I would venture to say that it is the most correct.

00:59:35.360 --> 00:59:41.640
 But the others are correct. Yes, sir.

00:59:41.640 --> 00:59:54.040
 Other questions of the appellant? Who are we speaking to at this moment?

00:59:54.040 --> 01:00:03.280
 Mr. Hudson, Cole Hudson. Mr. Hudson, as soon as I can find Mr. Hudson.

01:00:03.280 --> 01:00:05.440
 Speak up, Cole. Say something so we can see the --

01:00:05.440 --> 01:00:08.680
 Oh, I see you. I see you. Thank you, Cole.

01:00:08.680 --> 01:00:14.280
 So I'm on page 300. And at the very top, it says the three main

01:00:14.280 --> 01:00:21.840
 factors -- excuse me. It says three main factors influence a centrifugal fire pump's discharge

01:00:21.840 --> 01:00:26.840
 pressure. And then it gives the three bullet points

01:00:26.840 --> 01:00:31.720
 there. And then when you go to the question, it uses

01:00:31.720 --> 01:00:37.880
 those three bullet points. And then it has D. All of the above are correct.

01:00:37.880 --> 01:00:45.560
 So why would you choose A over D? The only reason I chose A over D during the

01:00:45.560 --> 01:00:52.320
 test was because of what I previously said on page 299 where it was a separate sentence

01:00:52.320 --> 01:00:57.600
 that stated the only one of those three that was included in my reference sentence was

01:00:57.600 --> 01:01:03.320
 the speed of the impeller dictates the amount of pressure that is developed.

01:01:03.320 --> 01:01:08.600
 Thank you. Yes, sir.

01:01:08.600 --> 01:01:17.080
 Other questions? Fire response.

01:01:17.080 --> 01:01:21.040
 Staying the key, the appeal takes the information out of context.

01:01:21.040 --> 01:01:25.280
 The book reads the speed of the impeller dictates the amount of pressure that is developed.

01:01:25.280 --> 01:01:29.000
 Nowhere does this section talk about discharge pressure being solely dependent on the impeller

01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:31.600
 speed. The book does clearly state the three main

01:01:31.600 --> 01:01:36.160
 factors influencing centrifugal pumps fired, discharge pressure, the amount of water being

01:01:36.160 --> 01:01:39.840
 discharged, the speed at which the impeller is turning, and the pressure of water when

01:01:39.840 --> 01:01:50.960
 it enters the pump. Questions of fire?

01:01:50.960 --> 01:01:56.000
 I have no questions of fire. None.

01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:06.280
 Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:02:06.280 --> 01:02:10.320
 I haven't seen anyone. I would entertain a motion from the commissioners.

01:02:10.320 --> 01:02:18.080
 I move that we sustain the key. I'll second.

01:02:18.080 --> 01:02:23.520
 Okay. Been moved and seconded to sustain the key on question 32.

01:02:23.520 --> 01:02:32.680
 Other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of sustaining

01:02:32.680 --> 01:02:37.400
 the key on 32, say aye. Aye.

01:02:37.400 --> 01:02:42.040
 Opposed? Motion carries.

01:02:42.040 --> 01:03:10.400
 Next is question 34, we have two appellants. Mr. Jones, you're carrying the torch.

01:03:10.400 --> 01:03:20.640
 Again, the question does read and the answer does read straight out of the book.

01:03:20.640 --> 01:03:25.280
 I would argue, though, that also the fourth principle allows that fluid pressure at the

01:03:25.280 --> 01:03:41.160
 bottom of containers greater than at the top of the container, as is the fourth principle.

01:03:41.160 --> 01:03:52.240
 Sorry. Say that one more time.

01:03:52.240 --> 01:03:57.280
 The fourth principle provides that the intensity of any fluid pressure at the bottom of a container

01:03:57.280 --> 01:04:02.520
 is greater than at the top of a container, that it's proportional to its depth.

01:04:02.520 --> 01:04:06.920
 That being said, I think that A reads that if you read the question, it says fluid pressure

01:04:06.920 --> 01:04:14.720
 is a point in a fluid at rest, is of the greatest intensity at the lowest point, I believe that's

01:04:14.720 --> 01:04:32.240
 also true in addition to question C. Answer C.

01:04:32.240 --> 01:04:36.520
 In your appeal, which I don't know if you have in front of you or not, but you have

01:04:36.520 --> 01:04:42.040
 a quote that I'm not laying my eyes on right now that says the pressure at the bottom of

01:04:42.040 --> 01:04:48.640
 the second container is twice that of the first?

01:04:48.640 --> 01:05:01.560
 That is the second paragraph under the fourth principle on page 173.

01:05:01.560 --> 01:05:10.520
 And it's referencing figure 5.8 at the bottom of the page.

01:05:10.520 --> 01:05:14.080
 Okay. Okay, I remember.

01:05:14.080 --> 01:05:23.500
 So that principle is dealing with, as I read it, that principle is dealing with the size

01:05:23.500 --> 01:05:32.400
 of the container, not necessarily the general rule of pressure being more at the top or

01:05:32.400 --> 01:05:41.200
 the bottom, because it talks about the pressure difference between the three sizes, the one

01:05:41.200 --> 01:05:50.280
 foot two feet and three feet of the third container as I read that.

01:05:50.280 --> 01:05:52.440
 Help me out.

01:05:52.440 --> 01:06:02.600
 I'm not a scientist, I don't know.

01:06:02.600 --> 01:06:08.640
 I know that we are, again, this is the argument of cognitive thinking versus quoting it out

01:06:08.640 --> 01:06:10.000
 of a book.

01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:15.080
 We learn a lot of fluid dynamics about elevation pressure and those being higher as you go

01:06:15.080 --> 01:06:16.080
 deeper.

01:06:16.080 --> 01:06:20.200
 So that's where I'm drawing those conclusions and reading that fourth principle that any

01:06:20.200 --> 01:06:29.720
 point and lower in a container would be of higher intensity than it higher at the container.

01:06:29.720 --> 01:06:40.800
 Any other questions of the appellant?

01:06:40.800 --> 01:06:42.320
 I do have a question, please.

01:06:42.320 --> 01:06:46.400
 Mr. Jones, thank you again.

01:06:46.400 --> 01:06:59.440
 I'm looking at page 172 and under the second principle, it says it gives an answer, but

01:06:59.440 --> 01:07:06.320
 in the question, it doesn't ask for a principle, it just says fluid pressure at the point and

01:07:06.320 --> 01:07:08.920
 fluid at the rest.

01:07:08.920 --> 01:07:17.480
 So I didn't know, is there a difference when looking at fluid pressure in general or when

01:07:17.480 --> 01:07:21.800
 you're looking at fluid pressure in light of the different principles?

01:07:21.800 --> 01:07:26.760
 These five principles, I don't know, does it change?

01:07:26.760 --> 01:07:29.240
 My answer to your question is I don't know.

01:07:29.240 --> 01:07:37.120
 The question asked at a point, a fluid point at rest, what is the true of that point?

01:07:37.120 --> 01:07:40.840
 It is true that it exerts the same pressure in all directions.

01:07:40.840 --> 01:07:44.760
 In my opinion, it's also true that it is of greater pressure, the fluid pressure at that

01:07:44.760 --> 01:07:56.760
 point, deeper in the container than it is at the top of that container.

01:07:56.760 --> 01:08:03.040
 I know the verbatim answer there on 172, but it's under the second principle.

01:08:03.040 --> 01:08:07.800
 So I guess my question was, if you were to take all the principles and just give me a

01:08:07.800 --> 01:08:16.760
 general statement about fluid pressure, which would be the most correct answer?

01:08:16.760 --> 01:08:19.200
 I don't believe that B is the only correct answer.

01:08:19.200 --> 01:08:25.880
 I believe that it is also higher at the lowest point.

01:08:25.880 --> 01:08:30.000
 The further you go down inside the vessel.

01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:32.400
 That's my opinion again.

01:08:32.400 --> 01:08:41.080
 I'm also not a scientist, but as I understand it, or whatever that means, second principle

01:08:41.080 --> 01:08:46.800
 says that it's equal in a container.

01:08:46.800 --> 01:08:54.920
 The height of the container, the depth of the container is what changes the pressure.

01:08:54.920 --> 01:09:02.280
 Not the highest, lowest within the container, but the depth of the container itself, whether

01:09:02.280 --> 01:09:04.500
 it's this or this.

01:09:04.500 --> 01:09:07.520
 So that's where the second principle actually.

01:09:07.520 --> 01:09:11.040
 The second principle applies in the fourth principle.

01:09:11.040 --> 01:09:16.640
 The fourth principle is just talking about different sizes of containers, is the way

01:09:16.640 --> 01:09:20.440
 I understand it.

01:09:20.440 --> 01:09:22.440
 I'm not a scientist either.

01:09:22.440 --> 01:09:27.520
 Would you like me to respond to that?

01:09:27.520 --> 01:09:32.500
 Can I ask a question?

01:09:32.500 --> 01:09:38.080
 In figure 5.8, it's talking about the three different sizes of the containers, and it

01:09:38.080 --> 01:09:43.040
 talks about that the one that measures two feet is a higher pressure than the one that

01:09:43.040 --> 01:09:46.280
 measures only one foot and so on and so forth.

01:09:46.280 --> 01:09:55.720
 All of these, are these considered fluids at rest, even though one is more full than

01:09:55.720 --> 01:09:56.720
 the other?

01:09:56.720 --> 01:10:02.800
 Are they all considered fluid at rest?

01:10:02.800 --> 01:10:04.520
 I consider them fluid at rest.

01:10:04.520 --> 01:10:07.320
 I don't read any different in the book.

01:10:07.320 --> 01:10:12.760
 Principle 2 is considered fluids at rest because it takes into account fluids in a motion.

01:10:12.760 --> 01:10:18.560
 The rest of them, I assume those are fluids at rest, and that the fourth principle refers

01:10:18.560 --> 01:10:25.160
 to that it's proportional to its depth, so that any fluid would be, fluid pressure would

01:10:25.160 --> 01:10:31.000
 be highest at the bottom of the container versus the top.

01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:42.200
 Both answers are correct then, because what I'm looking at is fluid pressure at a point

01:10:42.200 --> 01:10:48.080
 in fluid at rest is of the same intensity in all directions, meaning if I'm looking

01:10:48.080 --> 01:10:53.080
 at that container that's two feet and I'm looking just at the, I don't know, two inches

01:10:53.080 --> 01:10:58.000
 above where the water begins, if I'm measuring right there, the pressure is equal in all

01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:00.680
 directions at that same depth, right?

01:11:00.680 --> 01:11:07.920
 But what he's saying is, if I go higher, that's where the pressure changes.

01:11:07.920 --> 01:11:12.440
 Is that correct?

01:11:12.440 --> 01:11:14.520
 Are you asking me, Commissioner?

01:11:14.520 --> 01:11:15.520
 Yes.

01:11:15.520 --> 01:11:22.120
 So the fourth principle is saying, I'm sorry, in my understanding, the second principle

01:11:22.120 --> 01:11:27.280
 is referring to any velocity in fluids that that would change the pressure.

01:11:27.280 --> 01:11:32.560
 The fourth principle assumes, in my opinion, that those fluids are at rest and that a container

01:11:32.560 --> 01:11:38.120
 would have a higher fluid intensity at the bottom than it would at the top.

01:11:38.120 --> 01:11:45.680
 Yeah, I think we're talking about two, I think that's talking about two different things.

01:11:45.680 --> 01:11:46.680
 Yes.

01:11:46.680 --> 01:11:53.560
 One is talking about the amount of fluid and one is talking about just fluid at rest at

01:11:53.560 --> 01:11:56.680
 any one given point.

01:11:56.680 --> 01:12:01.160
 The second principle is fluid at rest, and that's what the question is.

01:12:01.160 --> 01:12:06.800
 Now, I understand there were some questions, some comments.

01:12:06.800 --> 01:12:09.960
 Shea, there's Shea.

01:12:09.960 --> 01:12:12.080
 Yes, sir.

01:12:12.080 --> 01:12:18.320
 I think what some of the confusion is here is, if you read on the second principle, it

01:12:18.320 --> 01:12:21.760
 says fluid pressure at a point at rest.

01:12:21.760 --> 01:12:27.720
 So that's saying, it's in a confined, it even says later on, it says this principle is using

01:12:27.720 --> 01:12:28.720
 hydrostatic testing.

01:12:28.720 --> 01:12:34.320
 We're not talking about the depth of the, like the height of an open container.

01:12:34.320 --> 01:12:39.000
 See like in the fourth principle, it says the pressure of a liquid in an open, not fluid

01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:40.000
 pressure.

01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:46.600
 So we're talking about the pressure in a confined space, just like in our hydrants and the main

01:12:46.600 --> 01:12:50.520
 water pipes that run underground, they're all at rest, which is how we are able to do

01:12:50.520 --> 01:12:51.520
 our hydrostatic testing.

01:12:51.520 --> 01:12:57.160
 So it's pressure, same in all, in all locations, same intensity in all directions.

01:12:57.160 --> 01:13:04.640
 Just to reiterate, talking about fluid pressure in an open container.

01:13:04.640 --> 01:13:13.360
 Mr. Wolf, you said, I think Shea pretty much said the same things that I was going to say.

01:13:13.360 --> 01:13:17.080
 The fourth principle is talking about an open vessel.

01:13:17.080 --> 01:13:21.400
 You can picture like a pool, like obviously there's going to be more pressure at the bottom

01:13:21.400 --> 01:13:28.320
 of the pool than at the top, but the second principle is not referring to an open vessel.

01:13:28.320 --> 01:13:33.320
 You can imagine the fire hose, there's not going to be more pressure at the bottom of

01:13:33.320 --> 01:13:35.600
 the fire hose than at the top.

01:13:35.600 --> 01:13:40.640
 If I'm applying 100 PSI to that fire hose, there's going to be the same amount of pressure

01:13:40.640 --> 01:13:43.200
 at any point in that fire hose.

01:13:43.200 --> 01:13:48.320
 So that's the, I think those are the really the big differences between the second and

01:13:48.320 --> 01:13:53.980
 fourth principle.

01:13:53.980 --> 01:13:59.960
 Which brings me back to my question of a general statement about fluid pressure.

01:13:59.960 --> 01:14:05.800
 It doesn't, it doesn't give a context.

01:14:05.800 --> 01:14:13.200
 When you have these different, differing instances, to me, those are going to change.

01:14:13.200 --> 01:14:21.960
 But if you ask about fluid pressure in a pool versus fluid pressure in a hose or in a vessel,

01:14:21.960 --> 01:14:24.040
 I would think you're going to have some variety.

01:14:24.040 --> 01:14:27.040
 That's just me.

01:14:27.040 --> 01:14:31.880
 Like the rest of you, I'm not a scientist, I'm just trying to read the document here.

01:14:31.880 --> 01:14:41.000
 But I'm just struggling with that, with the absence of an identifying point there.

01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:48.080
 Like for example, under the second principle, or if you're dealing with a water hose or

01:14:48.080 --> 01:14:57.600
 you're dealing with a pool of water, then making a statement about the fluid pressure.

01:14:57.600 --> 01:14:59.040
 So that's just me, personally.

01:14:59.040 --> 01:15:01.280
 So I'm struggling with that.

01:15:01.280 --> 01:15:07.720
 So I'll go back to you, Mr. Chair.

01:15:07.720 --> 01:15:08.720
 John?

01:15:08.720 --> 01:15:09.720
 Yes.

01:15:09.720 --> 01:15:10.720
 John Jones.

01:15:10.720 --> 01:15:11.720
 I'm sorry.

01:15:11.720 --> 01:15:12.720
 Oh, okay.

01:15:12.720 --> 01:15:18.760
 The only argument I would make is the question doesn't differentiate between open, closed,

01:15:18.760 --> 01:15:19.760
 pressurized, non-pressurized.

01:15:19.760 --> 01:15:20.760
 It just says a point at rest.

01:15:20.760 --> 01:15:35.560
 That's why I was asking if that second figure would be considered fluid at rest as well.

01:15:35.560 --> 01:15:37.800
 Okay.

01:15:37.800 --> 01:15:42.360
 Fire response.

01:15:42.360 --> 01:15:43.360
 Again the key.

01:15:43.360 --> 01:15:47.520
 Nowhere does it talk about comparing two or more different amounts of heights of fluid

01:15:47.520 --> 01:15:55.640
 or open vessel at all, like the fourth principle of water is based on.

01:15:55.640 --> 01:16:00.800
 Questions of fire?

01:16:00.800 --> 01:16:01.800
 I do.

01:16:01.800 --> 01:16:15.680
 I still have a difficulty with the absence of a defining introduction there, defining

01:16:15.680 --> 01:16:21.880
 introduction being under the fourth principle or under the second principle or when coming

01:16:21.880 --> 01:16:33.600
 to what, just to make a blanket statement, I don't know, the verbatim response is underneath

01:16:33.600 --> 01:16:35.080
 the second principle.

01:16:35.080 --> 01:16:39.920
 The question is, does that apply in each and every instance?

01:16:39.920 --> 01:16:42.520
 And that's where I'm struggling.

01:16:42.520 --> 01:16:51.160
 So the scientific principles are on the very basic qualities of water and pressure.

01:16:51.160 --> 01:16:57.680
 So if you don't add anything to it, that pressure, which it talks about at rest, is going to

01:16:57.680 --> 01:17:00.160
 be equal in every direction.

01:17:00.160 --> 01:17:06.760
 But as soon as you add a different factor, like an open container or height, then things

01:17:06.760 --> 01:17:09.640
 can change.

01:17:09.640 --> 01:17:15.640
 That number two is saying with no other factors involved, just the fact that the fluid is

01:17:15.640 --> 01:17:21.640
 at rest, the water pressure will be going, at any point will be given, distribute out

01:17:21.640 --> 01:17:27.400
 in every direction.

01:17:27.400 --> 01:17:28.560
 Thank you.

01:17:28.560 --> 01:17:36.440
 If we think about the water coming into our house, water's not on, it's not moving, but

01:17:36.440 --> 01:17:44.720
 the pressure is working in 360 degrees, ready for us to use it whenever we're using it.

01:17:44.720 --> 01:17:52.720
 And that's what this question is asking, because it's saying fluid pressure at rest.

01:17:52.720 --> 01:17:57.240
 When we change things, that's what changes the perception.

01:17:57.240 --> 01:18:02.760
 So, Cassie, I understand you had waved.

01:18:02.760 --> 01:18:13.520
 Yes, sir, I was just going to add the way that I view it, this is how we do our hosting,

01:18:13.520 --> 01:18:20.440
 the same intensity in all directions, we pressurize the hose with caps on it, and there's that

01:18:20.440 --> 01:18:25.180
 same pressure exerted across the entire hose, not more so at the bottom, less at the top,

01:18:25.180 --> 01:18:30.840
 and that's how we're able to check it for any damages, and so that's just how I'm able

01:18:30.840 --> 01:18:35.440
 to differentiate, because it is a little bit confusing, but that's how I was able to think

01:18:35.440 --> 01:18:45.280
 of it at rest, being in all directions, versus what Johnny Jones had said.

01:18:45.280 --> 01:18:46.280
 Okay.

01:18:46.280 --> 01:18:55.240
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:18:55.240 --> 01:19:03.520
 I would entertain a motion from the commissioners.

01:19:03.520 --> 01:19:07.880
 I move that we accept the key.

01:19:07.880 --> 01:19:11.920
 I'll second.

01:19:11.920 --> 01:19:20.440
 Motion and second to sustain the key for question 34 in discussion.

01:19:20.440 --> 01:19:21.440
 All in favor, say aye.

01:19:21.440 --> 01:19:22.440
 Aye.

01:19:22.440 --> 01:19:23.440
 Aye.

01:19:23.440 --> 01:19:29.000
 I'm going to vote against.

01:19:29.000 --> 01:19:41.960
 I didn't, it's not enough clarity there for me, so thank you.

01:19:41.960 --> 01:19:45.080
 Did I go too quickly on the discussion?

01:19:45.080 --> 01:19:48.320
 No, no, you're fine.

01:19:48.320 --> 01:19:57.160
 I just felt like, you know, I thought I verbalized pretty well that I'm looking for a distinction,

01:19:57.160 --> 01:19:58.160
 and that's for me.

01:19:58.160 --> 01:20:02.880
 But if I have a difficulty, I could see it as possible with someone else having a difficulty

01:20:02.880 --> 01:20:03.880
 as well.

01:20:03.880 --> 01:20:08.680
 But just to get the process going, I had to go ahead and make the motion, so we could

01:20:08.680 --> 01:20:11.680
 at least get it on the floor.

01:20:11.680 --> 01:20:12.680
 Okay.

01:20:12.680 --> 01:20:17.280
 Are we allowed to make the motion and then vote against it?

01:20:17.280 --> 01:20:18.280
 Absolutely.

01:20:18.280 --> 01:20:19.280
 Okay.

01:20:19.280 --> 01:20:27.280
 It's a motion that, that's why there's three of us, but we can absolutely, we can absolutely

01:20:27.280 --> 01:20:28.280
 vote against a motion.

01:20:28.280 --> 01:20:35.120
 I mean, okay, I guess it's already done, but like wouldn't the same thing be to throw the

01:20:35.120 --> 01:20:41.320
 question out, to make a motion to throw the question out?

01:20:41.320 --> 01:20:49.920
 You could do that, I mean, but I just, I guess I've done this in a number of settings, so

01:20:49.920 --> 01:20:54.960
 I knew that just to get the discussion going, I would go ahead and make the motion so we

01:20:54.960 --> 01:20:58.400
 could get there and move on.

01:20:58.400 --> 01:21:05.520
 His motion could have been against it to vote no, and then it would have been, it could

01:21:05.520 --> 01:21:09.160
 have made an alternative and we could have voted on that one.

01:21:09.160 --> 01:21:18.220
 I think that's the way Robert's Rules of Order would treat it.

01:21:18.220 --> 01:21:19.220
 I can't remember.

01:21:19.220 --> 01:21:20.220
 I was going to say something.

01:21:20.220 --> 01:21:21.400
 I can't remember what it was now.

01:21:21.400 --> 01:21:28.960
 We already voted, but it would have been good to see how many people got it right.

01:21:28.960 --> 01:21:35.440
 We have generally not tried not to use that as a factor.

01:21:35.440 --> 01:21:38.480
 That's kind of not fair.

01:21:38.480 --> 01:21:43.400
 We've decided, we've decided over the years, so we could discuss that later.

01:21:43.400 --> 01:21:51.040
 You said someone else had their hand up, but I mean, it's already done deal now, so.

01:21:51.040 --> 01:21:52.040
 Brett?

01:21:52.040 --> 01:21:53.040
 Brett?

01:21:53.040 --> 01:21:54.040
 There you are.

01:21:54.040 --> 01:21:55.040
 Yes.

01:21:55.040 --> 01:22:06.880
 If it's a done deal, then I was going to make a comment earlier and Mr. John Baines was

01:22:06.880 --> 01:22:13.280
 talking when he voted against it, but I'm not sure what I'm at liberty to say at this

01:22:13.280 --> 01:22:16.280
 point.

01:22:16.280 --> 01:22:29.640
 You're testing my Robert's Rules of Order here.

01:22:29.640 --> 01:22:35.400
 Moving on, okay.

01:22:35.400 --> 01:22:42.960
 Yeah, since it's, since it is a done deal, we'd have to, we'd have to vote to resend

01:22:42.960 --> 01:22:46.080
 the motion and start all over again.

01:22:46.080 --> 01:22:54.080
 Is that, is that what we want to do, commissioners?

01:22:54.080 --> 01:23:01.400
 I'm here to help facilitate the process, so if that's okay, then we can do that.

01:23:01.400 --> 01:23:08.480
 I just knew that I'm having trouble with the language, and so it's a little confusing for

01:23:08.480 --> 01:23:12.320
 me, and I said perhaps it may be confusing for others.

01:23:12.320 --> 01:23:14.480
 Maybe not for everyone, but for a few of us.

01:23:14.480 --> 01:23:21.400
 So maybe that's a, that's a recommendation that Chief Skipper has taken about this question.

01:23:21.400 --> 01:23:28.120
 If not, that's a subtle hint that he's going through now.

01:23:28.120 --> 01:23:30.640
 All right.

01:23:30.640 --> 01:23:34.840
 So the motion carries two to one.

01:23:34.840 --> 01:23:38.400
 Next is question 36.

01:23:38.400 --> 01:23:45.720
 Oh, hang on just a second.

01:23:45.720 --> 01:24:10.760
 Removing Books.

01:24:10.760 --> 01:24:13.760
 Okay.

01:24:13.760 --> 01:24:21.040
 Removing because I've got my book out now, so we have two appeals, two appellants, Mr.

01:24:21.040 --> 01:24:22.040
 Davis.

01:24:22.040 --> 01:24:24.960
 There he is.

01:24:24.960 --> 01:24:25.960
 And Mr. Punches.

01:24:25.960 --> 01:24:31.160
 Mr. Davis, we haven't heard from you all morning, so you've been sitting there very duty-ish,

01:24:31.160 --> 01:24:34.080
 so we'll let you go first.

01:24:34.080 --> 01:24:37.600
 Commissioner Lilly, please don't ask how many people missed this, because it's probably

01:24:37.600 --> 01:24:42.600
 just me and Punchy.

01:24:42.600 --> 01:24:47.400
 We have decided that the most important thing is memorization, word for word.

01:24:47.400 --> 01:24:52.840
 Where I messed up was I did not memorize page two, and I memorized page 17.

01:24:52.840 --> 01:24:59.600
 And page 17, right in the middle of the page, it says leadership requires vision.

01:24:59.600 --> 01:25:07.000
 And so that's why I answered D and felt like that was a good answer.

01:25:07.000 --> 01:25:15.040
 I realize A and D can't both, but I would at least appreciate it if y'all look at it

01:25:15.040 --> 01:25:18.040
 and see if you could make them all correct.

01:25:18.040 --> 01:25:23.880
 That's it.

01:25:23.880 --> 01:25:41.280
 Okay, Mr. Jones, oh, no, I'm sorry, Mr. Punches.

01:25:41.280 --> 01:25:49.040
 Where is he?

01:25:49.040 --> 01:26:06.280
 He's not, he's right now, he's not on the call.

01:26:06.280 --> 01:26:07.280
 Let's see.

01:26:07.280 --> 01:26:09.040
 Let's see if he calls back in very quickly.

01:26:09.040 --> 01:26:31.480
 Can we just hang on for a second?

01:26:31.480 --> 01:26:45.360
 If he comes in, I'm going to read his, I'm going to read his appeal.

01:26:45.360 --> 01:26:51.200
 If he comes back in, we can maybe talk with him about any.

01:26:51.200 --> 01:26:59.040
 Okay, so he's, he's out of the appeal.

01:26:59.040 --> 01:27:01.080
 Okay.

01:27:01.080 --> 01:27:03.940
 Questions of the appellant?

01:27:03.940 --> 01:27:15.800
 Yes, I did have a question of, of Mr. Punches, he's, he's not on the, he can't answer your

01:27:15.800 --> 01:27:16.800
 question.

01:27:16.800 --> 01:27:17.800
 Oh, I'm sorry.

01:27:17.800 --> 01:27:18.800
 That was Mr. Davis.

01:27:18.800 --> 01:27:19.800
 That was Mr. Davis.

01:27:19.800 --> 01:27:20.800
 I apologize.

01:27:20.800 --> 01:27:21.800
 I apologize.

01:27:21.800 --> 01:27:22.800
 Mr. Davis.

01:27:22.800 --> 01:27:23.800
 How are you today?

01:27:23.800 --> 01:27:24.800
 Oh, he can't hear me.

01:27:24.800 --> 01:27:25.800
 He can't talk.

01:27:25.800 --> 01:27:26.800
 Okay.

01:27:26.800 --> 01:27:32.520
 I was just going to say you had referenced another page and could you, could you repeat

01:27:32.520 --> 01:27:34.540
 what you had on that page for me, please?

01:27:34.540 --> 01:27:45.760
 I want to, I'm looking at, at page, page two under chapter one and you're on page 17.

01:27:45.760 --> 01:27:49.600
 Page 17, middle of the page, it says leadership requires vision.

01:27:49.600 --> 01:27:50.600
 Okay.

01:27:50.600 --> 01:27:51.600
 Okay.

01:27:51.600 --> 01:27:58.080
 I see, so it didn't, it didn't really list any of those that are listed here.

01:27:58.080 --> 01:27:59.080
 Okay.

01:27:59.080 --> 01:28:04.760
 Well, well then, okay, all right, that gives me my next question, which I'm going to ask

01:28:04.760 --> 01:28:07.160
 of a fire in just a minute.

01:28:07.160 --> 01:28:15.200
 Thank you, Mr. Davis.

01:28:15.200 --> 01:28:17.200
 Any other questions?

01:28:17.200 --> 01:28:24.200
 Check, check the paragraph just above the headline that says no one trained me.

01:28:24.200 --> 01:28:26.760
 Oh, that's yeah, I'm there.

01:28:26.760 --> 01:28:27.760
 I have it.

01:28:27.760 --> 01:28:28.760
 I see it.

01:28:28.760 --> 01:28:29.760
 Okay.

01:28:29.760 --> 01:28:30.760
 Yeah.

01:28:30.760 --> 01:28:31.760
 Yeah.

01:28:31.760 --> 01:28:32.760
 All right.

01:28:32.760 --> 01:28:33.760
 Fire response.

01:28:33.760 --> 01:28:34.760
 He's unmuted.

01:28:34.760 --> 01:28:35.760
 I hit it.

01:28:35.760 --> 01:28:36.760
 Sorry.

01:28:36.760 --> 01:28:47.080
 Sustained the key, direct quote from the book, the test question is not a limiting question.

01:28:47.080 --> 01:28:53.120
 It does not state leadership only requires, so Roman numbers one, two and three are all

01:28:53.120 --> 01:29:04.000
 clearly correct, making a, the best answer.

01:29:04.000 --> 01:29:05.600
 Question of fire.

01:29:05.600 --> 01:29:11.240
 I was just basically going to see how we, how do we merge those two, you know, that,

01:29:11.240 --> 01:29:18.760
 you know, on page 17 leadership requires vision and then I clearly see, you know, the section

01:29:18.760 --> 01:29:27.600
 here that's referenced, but I was just trying to, in my mind, once again, make sure I give

01:29:27.600 --> 01:29:30.680
 the appellants every opportunity to be correct.

01:29:30.680 --> 01:29:33.400
 So that's where I am.

01:29:33.400 --> 01:29:37.600
 I'm probing to make sure that we've given them every opportunity.

01:29:37.600 --> 01:29:40.960
 So thank you for your patience.

01:29:40.960 --> 01:29:41.960
 So vision.

01:29:41.960 --> 01:29:42.960
 I'm sorry.

01:29:42.960 --> 01:29:43.960
 Go ahead.

01:29:43.960 --> 01:29:51.320
 I was just going to say that on the, I think it was one of their justifications, it has,

01:29:51.320 --> 01:29:55.840
 it says, or it points out that it says it's only one line, so assuming that it's only

01:29:55.840 --> 01:29:56.840
 a one word answer.

01:29:56.840 --> 01:30:02.680
 If it was a one word answer, then vision would be the correct one.

01:30:02.680 --> 01:30:07.200
 The way that the book is written, if we were going to take it exactly out of the book,

01:30:07.200 --> 01:30:09.680
 we should have said, or the way that the question was written.

01:30:09.680 --> 01:30:12.440
 It requires blank and blank period.

01:30:12.440 --> 01:30:14.960
 Does that make sense?

01:30:14.960 --> 01:30:20.600
 I know it's a technicality, but the way that we're looking at the question and asking them

01:30:20.600 --> 01:30:27.640
 to memorize them the way that they're written, I can't imagine anybody, sorry, Mr. Davis,

01:30:27.640 --> 01:30:32.520
 choosing that action courage and termination aren't correct, but I do see what he's saying

01:30:32.520 --> 01:30:37.760
 that there's one blank, and so if we're going to go with one blank, then the one on page

01:30:37.760 --> 01:30:46.440
 17 would have been a more acceptable answer, since that's one word.

01:30:46.440 --> 01:30:50.080
 Just for clarification, Mr. Punches is the one who said one blank.

01:30:50.080 --> 01:30:51.080
 Yeah, that's fine.

01:30:51.080 --> 01:30:55.000
 I'm taking into consideration, because just because he's not here doesn't mean we can't

01:30:55.000 --> 01:30:56.000
 take his.

01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:03.080
 Right, but that one, that blank doesn't, and when you look at the answers, the rest of

01:31:03.080 --> 01:31:09.360
 the question is action courage determination.

01:31:09.360 --> 01:31:12.360
 Vision isn't listed.

01:31:12.360 --> 01:31:19.920
 So that there's a blank, if you put and, then that, technically, that makes the question,

01:31:19.920 --> 01:31:25.760
 that makes a question different, because then C would not be a correct answer, because the

01:31:25.760 --> 01:31:32.280
 and, and that's why they just left it as the blanks, with then the choice of being one,

01:31:32.280 --> 01:31:38.200
 two, and three, one and two, one, or none of the above, and vision isn't listed at all.

01:31:38.200 --> 01:31:42.040
 But that, well, not on that page, but that's not saying that look at that page, it's saying

01:31:42.040 --> 01:31:45.080
 look up, let the book step up and leave the entire book.

01:31:45.080 --> 01:31:50.440
 So page 17 is in that book, and if the department's justification says that the direct quote,

01:31:50.440 --> 01:31:54.600
 it's a direct quote from the book, the direct quote from the book says leadership requires

01:31:54.600 --> 01:32:01.760
 courage and determination, so then they can't use that justification, because the exact

01:32:01.760 --> 01:32:09.580
 line has both of those.

01:32:09.580 --> 01:32:14.920
 But you could put, the point is in the question, in the stem of the question, the blank allows

01:32:14.920 --> 01:32:18.600
 you to put any of those three words in there.

01:32:18.600 --> 01:32:27.200
 Not if they're going to use this justification, it's a direct quote from the book.

01:32:27.200 --> 01:32:36.000
 Well, I don't know, I don't think it means direct, my own, it doesn't mean that it's

01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:44.680
 the direct quote in, I mean, it is verbatim in the sense that it, the sentences say leadership

01:32:44.680 --> 01:32:51.240
 requires courage, determination, also requires action.

01:32:51.240 --> 01:32:52.240
 That's a direct quote.

01:32:52.240 --> 01:32:57.280
 So that's the quote on page 17, leadership requires vision.

01:32:57.280 --> 01:33:01.520
 Yes, but vision isn't one of the answers.

01:33:01.520 --> 01:33:06.880
 So the other three are correct, so the only correct answer on it, it's a question that

01:33:06.880 --> 01:33:18.200
 probably needs to be looked at, but vision doesn't enter into it, period.

01:33:18.200 --> 01:33:22.480
 Vision is not an answer that's an option, so we have to look at those three.

01:33:22.480 --> 01:33:29.840
 It is an answer that's an option because there's an option given that says none of the above.

01:33:29.840 --> 01:33:31.880
 But the others are there.

01:33:31.880 --> 01:33:32.880
 The others are there.

01:33:32.880 --> 01:33:39.920
 I'm going to have to argue or disagree on this one, I don't think that's a good question.

01:33:39.920 --> 01:33:46.400
 On one end we're saying we want answers directly verbatim from the book, and now on the other

01:33:46.400 --> 01:33:49.960
 side we're saying, oh, we can pick and choose from two different sentences what we want

01:33:49.960 --> 01:33:52.560
 to justify the department's answer.

01:33:52.560 --> 01:33:58.600
 You can't take something verbatim, and you've done tests like I have, you can't take something

01:33:58.600 --> 01:34:03.740
 verbatim and make it a question if it's a declarative statement.

01:34:03.740 --> 01:34:05.560
 You have to turn that around.

01:34:05.560 --> 01:34:09.080
 The content of it is all right there in the book.

01:34:09.080 --> 01:34:18.360
 All the three main words, four main words, but the fourth one is not in the game.

01:34:18.360 --> 01:34:25.900
 It's not a pitch that the pitcher knows how to throw, so it's not in there at all.

01:34:25.900 --> 01:34:36.280
 But you can't take a declarative statement, but it's not listed in their three options.

01:34:36.280 --> 01:34:43.180
 But those three are listed as requirements of leadership.

01:34:43.180 --> 01:34:45.000
 If you look at the book, that's what it says.

01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:46.000
 Yeah, I've seen the book.

01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:50.960
 I've seen page two and page 17, and that's my problem with it is that it's not saying

01:34:50.960 --> 01:34:55.000
 look at the first page of the book, it's saying look at the step up and lead, look at the

01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:57.800
 entire book.

01:34:57.800 --> 01:35:02.080
 I'd like to hear if there's any other officers that are speaking against the APL.

01:35:02.080 --> 01:35:07.640
 I'd like to hear what their thoughts are.

01:35:07.640 --> 01:35:11.920
 Okay, Cassie?

01:35:11.920 --> 01:35:15.400
 Yes, sir.

01:35:15.400 --> 01:35:23.480
 My argument would be that the question isn't limiting that vision can't be a requirement.

01:35:23.480 --> 01:35:27.880
 It's just stating that action, courage, and determination are requirements of it, which

01:35:27.880 --> 01:35:30.760
 is what A states.

01:35:30.760 --> 01:35:37.520
 The reason that B, C, and D can't be correct is because it's saying that only action and

01:35:37.520 --> 01:35:43.360
 courage, or only action, or that none of those are fulfilling the requirements of leadership

01:35:43.360 --> 01:35:45.080
 when they are stated in the book.

01:35:45.080 --> 01:35:51.240
 And like you were saying, ma'am, we're looking at the entire book, and those are in the book,

01:35:51.240 --> 01:35:53.680
 and it's not stating that vision can't be.

01:35:53.680 --> 01:35:58.160
 It's just stating that those three are requirements of it.

01:35:58.160 --> 01:36:03.800
 Page 17 reads leadership requires vision.

01:36:03.800 --> 01:36:08.040
 Chair Ramsey, I have a question.

01:36:08.040 --> 01:36:10.880
 I have a question, please.

01:36:10.880 --> 01:36:21.080
 I'm inclined to agree with the other commissioner in that I believe that A and D would be correct

01:36:21.080 --> 01:36:23.400
 answers.

01:36:23.400 --> 01:36:32.480
 And the reason for that is you can say D if you're referencing page 17, but if you're

01:36:32.480 --> 01:36:37.680
 referencing page two, then you would have one, two, and three.

01:36:37.680 --> 01:36:42.680
 So how do we handle that?

01:36:42.680 --> 01:36:47.540
 And I would think the other commissioner is probably going to side with me on this one,

01:36:47.540 --> 01:36:48.540
 that I'm positive.

01:36:48.540 --> 01:37:02.320
 I'm not putting words in your mouth, commissioner, possibly everyone that got it correct would

01:37:02.320 --> 01:37:13.240
 say as is, but also give some opportunity to the other direct quote that says leadership

01:37:13.240 --> 01:37:14.920
 requires vision.

01:37:14.920 --> 01:37:23.040
 If we look at this as always choosing the best answer, and that's the test taking principle

01:37:23.040 --> 01:37:30.400
 that we have to, that everybody has to learn, we took the best answer of those four answers,

01:37:30.400 --> 01:37:33.400
 which is the best answer.

01:37:33.400 --> 01:37:38.920
 It depends what page you're referencing.

01:37:38.920 --> 01:37:39.920
 No.

01:37:39.920 --> 01:37:46.360
 I'm asking for those four questions, of that question, those four answers.

01:37:46.360 --> 01:37:50.600
 Okay, but think back the way that some of these other questions have been, we're not

01:37:50.600 --> 01:37:54.200
 asking them to think, we're asking them to quote the book.

01:37:54.200 --> 01:37:56.760
 And that is a direct quote in the book, Lillian.

01:37:56.760 --> 01:37:59.240
 Yes, on page 17 as well.

01:37:59.240 --> 01:38:03.160
 So I would say, I would recommend that we would either, you can either throw the entire

01:38:03.160 --> 01:38:10.080
 question out or you could accept Andy.

01:38:10.080 --> 01:38:11.080
 Okay.

01:38:11.080 --> 01:38:14.640
 Rhett, I think he was there longer, I think.

01:38:14.640 --> 01:38:15.640
 I'm not sure.

01:38:15.640 --> 01:38:16.640
 Cole, you're coming.

01:38:16.640 --> 01:38:18.440
 I'm coming to you.

01:38:18.440 --> 01:38:19.440
 Hello.

01:38:19.440 --> 01:38:20.440
 Can everybody hear me?

01:38:20.440 --> 01:38:21.440
 Yes, sir.

01:38:21.440 --> 01:38:22.440
 We can.

01:38:22.440 --> 01:38:23.440
 Okay.

01:38:23.440 --> 01:38:28.880
 I think everybody's trying to find balance, that critical point where we're trying to

01:38:28.880 --> 01:38:35.360
 determine if we're going to memorize or have some sort of concept of deductive reasoning.

01:38:35.360 --> 01:38:39.920
 And I feel like everybody is saying something that's right.

01:38:39.920 --> 01:38:41.800
 This is not a word for word sentence.

01:38:41.800 --> 01:38:47.960
 Now, the stem of the question could lead the testee to make a deductive reasoning question

01:38:47.960 --> 01:38:50.320
 or answer to this.

01:38:50.320 --> 01:38:54.280
 So moving forward, I'd just like to point out that number one, this is not a word for

01:38:54.280 --> 01:38:57.160
 word question.

01:38:57.160 --> 01:39:05.280
 And then number two, it'll, it makes and allows the testee to make a deductive reasoning answer

01:39:05.280 --> 01:39:09.360
 choice based off the concept of the material.

01:39:09.360 --> 01:39:13.360
 I have nothing to say.

01:39:13.360 --> 01:39:14.360
 Okay.

01:39:14.360 --> 01:39:15.360
 Cole.

01:39:15.360 --> 01:39:16.360
 Yes, sir.

01:39:16.360 --> 01:39:17.360
 Can you hear me?

01:39:17.360 --> 01:39:18.360
 Yes, sir.

01:39:18.360 --> 01:39:19.360
 Okay.

01:39:19.360 --> 01:39:23.600
 I would like to say that Commissioner Lillian, I completely see what you're saying.

01:39:23.600 --> 01:39:27.400
 The only thing that I would like to add to that is for you to look at question D, and

01:39:27.400 --> 01:39:29.660
 it would say none of the above.

01:39:29.660 --> 01:39:34.160
 So if we are following, say we're looking at the whole book, like you stated, because

01:39:34.160 --> 01:39:40.560
 I do agree, it's not directly from page two, could be also page 17.

01:39:40.560 --> 01:39:45.000
 But if D is also accepted as a possible correct answer, then we are going against the book

01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:51.680
 saying that action, courage and determination are not required for leaders or for leadership,

01:39:51.680 --> 01:39:55.280
 excuse me, but they are also in the book required.

01:39:55.280 --> 01:39:58.200
 So that's why I don't feel D would also be an acceptable answer.

01:39:58.200 --> 01:40:00.000
 I do see what you're saying, though.

01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:04.720
 I do feel like vision, if it was listed, would definitely be a potential answer.

01:40:04.720 --> 01:40:11.720
 But I think saying D would say that those three are not in the book, which they are.

01:40:11.720 --> 01:40:13.600
 Shane.

01:40:13.600 --> 01:40:18.120
 Hey there.

01:40:18.120 --> 01:40:22.400
 Just to add to kind of what Cole was saying, if you read the question, at the beginning

01:40:22.400 --> 01:40:27.080
 of the question, it says according to the author of Step Up and Lead.

01:40:27.080 --> 01:40:29.480
 It's not saying according to a certain page.

01:40:29.480 --> 01:40:35.600
 You could take any part of that book, anywhere where he says leadership requires anything,

01:40:35.600 --> 01:40:37.080
 and plug it in there.

01:40:37.080 --> 01:40:42.080
 Those three are in there of what is required for leadership when you say according to the

01:40:42.080 --> 01:40:45.680
 author, not according to a certain page or a certain paragraph.

01:40:45.680 --> 01:40:52.320
 It just says the author uses these three in the book as a determination of what is required

01:40:52.320 --> 01:40:53.760
 for leadership.

01:40:53.760 --> 01:41:04.040
 So it's not just those three, but those three are in there.

01:41:04.040 --> 01:41:07.040
 Thank you.

01:41:07.040 --> 01:41:22.600
 I agree with both of you, Cole and Shaye, then my only concern with that is that the

01:41:22.600 --> 01:41:25.840
 reasoning of the department has to be changed then, because they're saying that it's a direct

01:41:25.840 --> 01:41:26.840
 quote from the book.

01:41:26.840 --> 01:41:32.040
 So if we are going to change that, then we can either choose to sustain the key once

01:41:32.040 --> 01:41:39.520
 the reasoning has been updated, or we throw that question out.

01:41:39.520 --> 01:41:45.240
 I think this underscores the need for the commissioners or the department or whoever

01:41:45.240 --> 01:41:53.680
 is going to be doing this henceforth to have that conversation and come to a revised position

01:41:53.680 --> 01:42:03.200
 on how we're going to move forward on this, but for today, you know, I'm having a little

01:42:03.200 --> 01:42:11.040
 difficulty with this one, but I think I'm going to have to, just for the sake of moving

01:42:11.040 --> 01:42:17.800
 forward, probably sustain the key, would be my recommendation.

01:42:17.800 --> 01:42:20.800
 That is a motion?

01:42:20.800 --> 01:42:23.800
 Reluctantly.

01:42:23.800 --> 01:42:30.160
 I'll second it.

01:42:30.160 --> 01:42:32.440
 Now we can get into discussion.

01:42:32.440 --> 01:42:38.200
 I mean, it really doesn't, it's not asking for any deductive reasoning.

01:42:38.200 --> 01:42:42.520
 They're all, they're four things listed.

01:42:42.520 --> 01:42:49.520
 Leadership requires courage, determination, action, and vision.

01:42:49.520 --> 01:42:52.880
 There's no deductivity at all in that.

01:42:52.880 --> 01:43:01.480
 There's four things, but only three listed, and of those three, they're all listed.

01:43:01.480 --> 01:43:14.300
 Therefore, the only answer is A. If none of the others were listed, you know, if they

01:43:14.300 --> 01:43:22.080
 put four other, three other answers up there that none of which were of those four words,

01:43:22.080 --> 01:43:26.920
 then the answer would be D, none of the above.

01:43:26.920 --> 01:43:29.540
 They're all there.

01:43:29.540 --> 01:43:38.280
 So if those three are there, the only answer is A. There's no deductivity about it at all.

01:43:38.280 --> 01:43:40.500
 They're all there.

01:43:40.500 --> 01:43:44.760
 It's not like saying if a ladder, if you're trying to rescue somebody, does the ladder

01:43:44.760 --> 01:43:51.120
 go three feet, three and a half feet, three and three quarter feet above the, above the

01:43:51.120 --> 01:43:52.120
 sill?

01:43:52.120 --> 01:43:56.480
 I mean, that's a, that would be a question that perhaps, you know, if I'm in that window,

01:43:56.480 --> 01:44:01.520
 I'm not worried about whether it's three and a half feet or three and three quarter feet.

01:44:01.520 --> 01:44:03.700
 Just get me out of the burning building.

01:44:03.700 --> 01:44:10.280
 That would be something that would require some deductive reasoning and is, I mean, nobody's

01:44:10.280 --> 01:44:12.300
 going to get out and measure that.

01:44:12.300 --> 01:44:14.320
 These are all right there.

01:44:14.320 --> 01:44:16.640
 They're in the book, according to the author.

01:44:16.640 --> 01:44:23.560
 Chair Ramsey, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on your deductive reasoning or your

01:44:23.560 --> 01:44:24.560
 position.

01:44:24.560 --> 01:44:26.320
 This is a declarative statement.

01:44:26.320 --> 01:44:31.520
 So not only do you have a declarative statement on page two, but it's also on page 17.

01:44:31.520 --> 01:44:33.520
 So you're correct.

01:44:33.520 --> 01:44:38.480
 There's no deductive reasoning required, but they're asking a declarative statement.

01:44:38.480 --> 01:44:47.240
 And so it declares on page two and declares on page 17 that what leadership requires.

01:44:47.240 --> 01:44:53.320
 And for that reason, I struggle, but I realized just for the sake of the day, I'm probably

01:44:53.320 --> 01:45:02.760
 going to have to just, you know, maintain the key because that number, that number D

01:45:02.760 --> 01:45:09.640
 would be correct if we would consider, you know, another page, but we're not considering

01:45:09.640 --> 01:45:10.760
 another page today.

01:45:10.760 --> 01:45:18.280
 So I'm just going to, I'm going to stay with that for right now, Lillian, I'm sorry.

01:45:18.280 --> 01:45:19.940
 Okay.

01:45:19.940 --> 01:45:24.480
 Motion is on the floor is to sustain the key.

01:45:24.480 --> 01:45:26.680
 Cassie.

01:45:26.680 --> 01:45:31.320
 Do you have something, Cassie?

01:45:31.320 --> 01:45:32.880
 Sorry, sorry.

01:45:32.880 --> 01:45:33.880
 Okay.

01:45:33.880 --> 01:45:34.880
 It's all right.

01:45:34.880 --> 01:45:35.880
 I saw another.

01:45:35.880 --> 01:45:36.880
 Wade.

01:45:36.880 --> 01:45:37.880
 Was it you?

01:45:37.880 --> 01:45:39.680
 Did you have something?

01:45:39.680 --> 01:45:42.520
 I didn't have anything.

01:45:42.520 --> 01:45:43.520
 Okay.

01:45:43.520 --> 01:45:44.520
 I thought I saw your wave.

01:45:44.520 --> 01:45:45.520
 All right.

01:45:45.520 --> 01:45:47.840
 Motion is to sustain the key.

01:45:47.840 --> 01:45:49.960
 All in favor say aye.

01:45:49.960 --> 01:45:50.960
 Aye.

01:45:50.960 --> 01:45:51.960
 Opposed?

01:45:51.960 --> 01:45:52.960
 Aye.

01:45:52.960 --> 01:46:01.520
 Motion carries.

01:46:01.520 --> 01:46:03.360
 Colin did you get the message?

01:46:03.360 --> 01:46:06.000
 I mean, Chief Skipper.

01:46:06.000 --> 01:46:11.920
 All right.

01:46:11.920 --> 01:46:15.080
 He's been around too long.

01:46:15.080 --> 01:46:20.760
 Next is question 42.

01:46:20.760 --> 01:46:33.680
 And there are two appellants for that one, Mr. Owen and Mr. Young.

01:46:33.680 --> 01:46:38.560
 Okay.

01:46:38.560 --> 01:46:55.520
 Mr. Young, you're the, you're the leader here.

01:46:55.520 --> 01:46:56.520
 Where did he go?

01:46:56.520 --> 01:46:59.400
 Can you hear me, sir?

01:46:59.400 --> 01:47:01.800
 Yes, sir.

01:47:01.800 --> 01:47:05.680
 We lost you there for a second.

01:47:05.680 --> 01:47:10.840
 First of all, I wanted to kind of state my opinion book in general, because I think judging

01:47:10.840 --> 01:47:14.860
 from the last question, and there's going to be some follow up questions that are appealing.

01:47:14.860 --> 01:47:20.140
 This is a book that's talking about leadership that is written by an author.

01:47:20.140 --> 01:47:22.800
 It's not scientific like we've been talking about.

01:47:22.800 --> 01:47:24.880
 So it's based on his opinion as a leader.

01:47:24.880 --> 01:47:28.080
 You could read a hundred books about leadership and they're going to have different things

01:47:28.080 --> 01:47:29.080
 in that.

01:47:29.080 --> 01:47:33.280
 So I think that that leaves it open for a lot of debate on these questions.

01:47:33.280 --> 01:47:38.760
 And specifically on the question that we're talking about, the first point that I made

01:47:38.760 --> 01:47:42.480
 is that the question states one of the best tools.

01:47:42.480 --> 01:47:46.480
 When you say one of the best tools, I could tell you one of the best tools for cutting

01:47:46.480 --> 01:47:47.880
 a roof is a chainsaw.

01:47:47.880 --> 01:47:52.920
 I could also tell you one of the best tools for cutting the roof is also an axe.

01:47:52.920 --> 01:47:57.200
 So it implies that there could be multiple bests.

01:47:57.200 --> 01:48:04.640
 My second point is the book as a whole is about leadership, i.e. motivating people.

01:48:04.640 --> 01:48:08.600
 That's what leadership really is, is motivating people to follow.

01:48:08.600 --> 01:48:13.600
 So if you're making a statement that this is the only best tool, well then the whole

01:48:13.600 --> 01:48:17.400
 book should have been written about that one specific thing, and it's not.

01:48:17.400 --> 01:48:19.600
 It's written about multiple things.

01:48:19.600 --> 01:48:25.000
 Then my third point was, if you look at the book and you read it as a whole, now I know

01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:30.640
 that the department is going to say it's a direct quote, and there is a sentence in there

01:48:30.640 --> 01:48:33.520
 that does say what the question says.

01:48:33.520 --> 01:48:41.080
 But we are trying to memorize, but like one of the commissioners said before, you're memorizing

01:48:41.080 --> 01:48:42.080
 a whole book.

01:48:42.080 --> 01:48:44.400
 You're memorizing multiple books.

01:48:44.400 --> 01:48:49.600
 You can't expect a person to memorize the exact thing that it says on one page and then

01:48:49.600 --> 01:48:56.660
 on multiple other pages, which I have listed in my appeal, page 101, page 134 through 136,

01:48:56.660 --> 01:49:05.160
 page 151, page 225, page 252, page 129, all those pages talks about a reward system as

01:49:05.160 --> 01:49:08.960
 being a way to motivate people and to lead them.

01:49:08.960 --> 01:49:17.200
 So to just single out enthusiasm as the one basic thing that motivates people, I think

01:49:17.200 --> 01:49:23.040
 that that whole question obviously could have multiple answers, and in general, it leads

01:49:23.040 --> 01:49:25.120
 it up to interpretation.

01:49:25.120 --> 01:49:31.600
 So that's kind of my argument.

01:49:31.600 --> 01:49:41.120
 The other appeal also talks about answer A as being correct, again, talking about rewards.

01:49:41.120 --> 01:49:46.080
 They weren't quite as specific as you, Mr. Young, in listing the pages, but it's basically

01:49:46.080 --> 01:49:48.280
 the same argument.

01:49:48.280 --> 01:49:57.120
 Any questions of the appellants?

01:49:57.120 --> 01:49:59.720
 Thank you for your thoroughness and your presentation.

01:49:59.720 --> 01:50:01.920
 Yes, sir.

01:50:01.920 --> 01:50:09.640
 Lillian, do you have any questions?

01:50:09.640 --> 01:50:23.000
 This is the same thing as before, but I do appreciate the explanation.

01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:30.120
 Okay, fire response.

01:50:30.120 --> 01:50:31.120
 Sustain the key.

01:50:31.120 --> 01:50:32.120
 Direct quote from the book.

01:50:32.120 --> 01:50:36.080
 According to the book, reward systems show appreciation, enthusiasm motivates others.

01:50:36.080 --> 01:50:41.040
 It does not state that appreciation equals motivates, nor does it state reward system

01:50:41.040 --> 01:50:47.240
 leads to motivation.

01:50:47.240 --> 01:50:57.200
 Questions of fire?

01:50:57.200 --> 01:51:05.080
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

01:51:05.080 --> 01:51:14.480
 I would entertain a motion.

01:51:14.480 --> 01:51:21.960
 Is there anywhere that, because I understand what Fire is saying, that appreciation does

01:51:21.960 --> 01:51:22.960
 not equal motivates.

01:51:22.960 --> 01:51:29.520
 Is there anywhere that it does make those two synonymous?

01:51:29.520 --> 01:51:36.160
 I'm asking the appellants.

01:51:36.160 --> 01:51:39.720
 I was looking at page 101, and it just talks about rewards and recognitions are vitally

01:51:39.720 --> 01:51:45.320
 important when it comes to expressing appreciation, but it doesn't say that appreciation is synonymous

01:51:45.320 --> 01:51:49.280
 with motivation.

01:51:49.280 --> 01:52:03.200
 Chairman Ramsey, if you give me a few minutes, I'm actually going through the book now, looking

01:52:03.200 --> 01:52:04.840
 at these other references.

01:52:04.840 --> 01:52:08.760
 So please give me just a moment.

01:52:08.760 --> 01:52:23.120
 Thank you.

01:52:38.760 --> 01:52:41.660
 ten minutes, Mr. Young, can you help us?

01:52:41.660 --> 01:52:43.960
 I know you don't have the book in front of you.

01:52:43.960 --> 01:52:46.480
 I assume you don't have the book in front of you.

01:52:46.480 --> 01:52:47.480
 No, sir.

01:52:47.480 --> 01:52:50.020
 I actually do have the book in front of me.

01:52:50.020 --> 01:52:51.020
 Can you?

01:52:51.020 --> 01:53:01.740
 I think Commissioner Prado makes a very good question about is there a linkage between reward

01:53:01.740 --> 01:53:06.100
 and motivation?

01:53:06.100 --> 01:53:09.000
 On the spot, I cannot present anything.

01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:14.060
 You have to realize that I appealed this question, you know, a couple of months ago, I don't

01:53:14.060 --> 01:53:19.400
 have information of what they the fire service comes back at us with.

01:53:19.400 --> 01:53:23.440
 And now we're put on the spot to try to read through a whole book and find their link that

01:53:23.440 --> 01:53:24.980
 they provide for us.

01:53:24.980 --> 01:53:27.340
 And so right here on the spot, I did not have that.

01:53:27.340 --> 01:53:34.020
 I mean, if you gave me a month, I could probably come up with, you know what I mean?

01:53:34.020 --> 01:53:39.900
 But you know, my argument would be is what motivates you may be different than what motivates

01:53:39.900 --> 01:53:43.700
 me, which may be different than motivate somebody else.

01:53:43.700 --> 01:53:45.980
 Appreciation for you may motivate you.

01:53:45.980 --> 01:53:47.940
 Appreciation for somebody else may not motivate them.

01:53:47.940 --> 01:53:51.340
 If they feel appreciated, they may that may motivate them.

01:53:51.340 --> 01:53:58.580
 So to say that appreciation doesn't motivate people, again, is an opinion.

01:53:58.580 --> 01:54:03.220
 And I know we're going just off of this book, but he emphasizes a lot of things in this

01:54:03.220 --> 01:54:05.600
 book to lead people.

01:54:05.600 --> 01:54:17.260
 And I would argue that motivating people and leading people is almost one in the same.

01:54:17.260 --> 01:54:19.460
 Thank you.

01:54:19.460 --> 01:54:20.460
 I'm almost done.

01:54:20.460 --> 01:54:25.280
 Commissioner Chairman, I'm looking at I'm in the 200s now.

01:54:25.280 --> 01:54:42.340
 Thank you.

01:54:42.340 --> 01:55:12.140
 I'm

01:55:12.140 --> 01:55:14.140
 finished.

01:55:14.140 --> 01:55:22.740
 Thank you for your patience.

01:55:22.740 --> 01:55:24.740
 Did you find anything?

01:55:24.740 --> 01:55:33.580
 Well, I think there's a definitely a theme there of recognition and recognizing.

01:55:33.580 --> 01:55:38.500
 But enthusiasm is not the only method of recognize.

01:55:38.500 --> 01:55:49.140
 So I think, you know, to to to kind of underscore the gentleman's point or just a point in general.

01:55:49.140 --> 01:55:53.700
 Yes, it specifically says enthusiasm is one of the best tools.

01:55:53.700 --> 01:55:55.580
 It's on page 47.

01:55:55.580 --> 01:56:01.660
 But as I as I speed read through some of the other areas, there are other means of recognizing

01:56:01.660 --> 01:56:02.660
 as well.

01:56:02.660 --> 01:56:16.440
 And so, you know, I've just got to ask myself, does it harm anything to to have a differing

01:56:16.440 --> 01:56:17.440
 opinion?

01:56:17.440 --> 01:56:18.440
 So that's where I am right now.

01:56:18.440 --> 01:56:23.700
 And I haven't come to that conclusion, but the question doesn't say a tool to recognize

01:56:23.700 --> 01:56:31.860
 the questions of the tool to motivate the I'm looking at the the department's reasoning

01:56:31.860 --> 01:56:40.260
 that it does not state that appreciation equals motivation.

01:56:40.260 --> 01:56:46.620
 And so that's why I was asking at any point, can can those who are those to use as synonyms

01:56:46.620 --> 01:56:51.220
 in the book that we weren't able I wasn't able to find that when I was looking at all

01:56:51.220 --> 01:56:58.700
 the pages that were listed on the closest that I came was to increase morale.

01:56:58.700 --> 01:57:06.020
 That's the closest one that I found on my perusal through it.

01:57:06.020 --> 01:57:14.700
 Part of this, I think, was and was my background, and Lillian just says yours in teaching, because

01:57:14.700 --> 01:57:23.900
 we do use reward, both extrinsic and intrinsic as ways to motivate.

01:57:23.900 --> 01:57:34.020
 But you're absolutely right in the sense that the book only pairs enthusiasm with motivation

01:57:34.020 --> 01:57:35.640
 in those words.

01:57:35.640 --> 01:57:51.220
 But I thought A and B would be would both be acceptable answers.

01:57:51.220 --> 01:57:52.600
 Is that your motion?

01:57:52.600 --> 01:58:00.740
 If I can make the motion, I would, I would move that we accept A and B as correct answers.

01:58:00.740 --> 01:58:03.660
 Good.

01:58:03.660 --> 01:58:04.660
 Is there a second?

01:58:04.660 --> 01:58:06.020
 I'll second that.

01:58:06.020 --> 01:58:07.020
 Any discussion?

01:58:07.020 --> 01:58:19.820
 Now, I'm not opposed to that, I just think we, we are on a very fine line that on some

01:58:19.820 --> 01:58:25.060
 questions, we, we agree, and we go strictly by what's in the book, and then another question

01:58:25.060 --> 01:58:32.540
 we're saying, we're allowing our firefighters to think for themselves, which they ought.

01:58:32.540 --> 01:58:35.980
 But I think that we as commissioners, when we're deciding on these questions, we're,

01:58:35.980 --> 01:58:40.140
 we're in a very fine line that we're going back and forth, and I don't I don't really

01:58:40.140 --> 01:58:51.980
 like that, but I don't oppose to accept these.

01:58:51.980 --> 01:58:59.980
 The motion is to accept A and B as as answers to question 42.

01:58:59.980 --> 01:59:02.820
 Yes, sir.

01:59:02.820 --> 01:59:11.460
 Just because it keeps coming up from the department, the expectation is rote memorization and that

01:59:11.460 --> 01:59:16.340
 the answer should be coming from the book and material and not your opinion or anyone

01:59:16.340 --> 01:59:17.340
 else's opinion.

01:59:17.340 --> 01:59:22.620
 It is straight from the book.

01:59:22.620 --> 01:59:33.180
 Greg, go ahead if you said you had something.

01:59:33.180 --> 01:59:34.180
 Yes, sir.

01:59:34.180 --> 01:59:40.200
 I was just almost what battalion chief skipper just said in a rain area with Steve Young

01:59:40.200 --> 01:59:45.500
 said earlier, unfortunately, this book doesn't isn't based on scientific fact or, you know,

01:59:45.500 --> 01:59:48.820
 anything that you could look up or research, it's essentially it's essentially just the

01:59:48.820 --> 01:59:56.680
 author's opinion, several anecdotes, quotes from everybody.

01:59:56.680 --> 02:00:02.100
 And if we were if we were given the liberty to just say that this word is synonymous with

02:00:02.100 --> 02:00:07.180
 another word in the book, this book particular you could say that about the whole thing.

02:00:07.180 --> 02:00:12.020
 I mean, because it's like I said, it's just his opinion.

02:00:12.020 --> 02:00:17.900
 So I'm afraid if we start doing that, then like Commissioner Carrillo said, then we're

02:00:17.900 --> 02:00:23.040
 open up a whole box of worms about, well, if a means B, then B means C. And then where

02:00:23.040 --> 02:00:24.660
 do we go from there?

02:00:24.660 --> 02:00:33.180
 On the other hand, the answer enthusiasm is a direct quote from the book.

02:00:33.180 --> 02:00:34.180
 Thank you.

02:00:34.180 --> 02:00:47.700
 All right, the motion on the floor is to accept a and B as answers to question 42.

02:00:47.700 --> 02:00:50.980
 All in favor, say aye.

02:00:50.980 --> 02:00:52.780
 Aye.

02:00:52.780 --> 02:00:55.860
 All opposed.

02:00:55.860 --> 02:01:00.000
 Nay.

02:01:00.000 --> 02:01:04.580
 Motion is defeated.

02:01:04.580 --> 02:01:05.900
 So I need another motion.

02:01:05.900 --> 02:01:10.180
 So I make a motion that we sustain the key next time to be.

02:01:10.180 --> 02:01:11.180
 Did you vote against it?

02:01:11.180 --> 02:01:12.180
 Commissioner?

02:01:12.180 --> 02:01:13.180
 Yes, sir.

02:01:13.180 --> 02:01:14.180
 Yes, sir.

02:01:14.180 --> 02:01:15.180
 Okay.

02:01:15.180 --> 02:01:16.180
 All right.

02:01:16.180 --> 02:01:17.180
 Okay.

02:01:17.180 --> 02:01:27.220
 I'll second it just to just to get the discussion started.

02:01:27.220 --> 02:01:32.060
 Any other discussion?

02:01:32.060 --> 02:01:36.900
 Motion on the floor now is to sustain the key.

02:01:36.900 --> 02:01:38.980
 All in favor, say aye.

02:01:38.980 --> 02:01:40.220
 Aye.

02:01:40.220 --> 02:01:41.620
 Opposed.

02:01:41.620 --> 02:01:42.980
 Nay.

02:01:42.980 --> 02:01:52.500
 And I, and I positive.

02:01:52.500 --> 02:02:00.580
 So motion to sustain the key carries.

02:02:00.580 --> 02:02:01.580
 Moving on.

02:02:01.580 --> 02:02:02.580
 Wow.

02:02:02.580 --> 02:02:08.100
 Got some must see TV there.

02:02:08.100 --> 02:02:26.020
 Motion 44 that Jason, I don't think Jason is on, is he Mr. Owen?

02:02:26.020 --> 02:02:30.860
 Okay.

02:02:30.860 --> 02:02:36.500
 Question individuals who have had the greatest impact on the organization overall are usually

02:02:36.500 --> 02:02:47.540
 those blank A who are the company officers B they get designated as barn bosses C at

02:02:47.540 --> 02:02:54.940
 the top of the organization D who makes the least amount of money.

02:02:54.940 --> 02:03:00.900
 The answer is C at the top of the organization.

02:03:00.900 --> 02:03:12.540
 Mr. Owen's appeal says that another answer A is also correct.

02:03:12.540 --> 02:03:21.500
 And his justification is the entire book talks about leadership rising from all ranks.

02:03:21.500 --> 02:03:27.380
 Page, I think it's 51 talked about layered leadership.

02:03:27.380 --> 02:03:37.500
 So to me, the answer A should also be correct.

02:03:37.500 --> 02:03:40.780
 Brett Brett, I'm sorry.

02:03:40.780 --> 02:03:42.340
 Yes, sir.

02:03:42.340 --> 02:03:44.300
 I'm here.

02:03:44.300 --> 02:03:46.380
 Yes, sir.

02:03:46.380 --> 02:03:50.220
 I just like to expand on this.

02:03:50.220 --> 02:03:56.940
 There's two sentences that I'd like to reference in the book immediately after this, this paragraph

02:03:56.940 --> 02:04:01.820
 where they're referencing the answer, it says fire officers play critical roles in creating

02:04:01.820 --> 02:04:03.300
 the right customer service.

02:04:03.300 --> 02:04:11.300
 Now the entire chapter is about customer service and culture on 177.

02:04:11.300 --> 02:04:17.480
 The author states creating a culture of customer service does not happen by accident.

02:04:17.480 --> 02:04:23.300
 Buying into the concept of layered leadership, the need for leaders throughout an entire

02:04:23.300 --> 02:04:27.560
 organization is especially important when it comes to customer service.

02:04:27.560 --> 02:04:34.580
 So if he's referencing the layered leadership term, which he references again on page 81,

02:04:34.580 --> 02:04:42.180
 he specifically says layered leadership is a fancy way of saying that 99% of all leadership

02:04:42.180 --> 02:04:52.980
 occurs not from the top, from the middle of the organization.

02:04:52.980 --> 02:04:56.580
 What page was that again, Brett, excuse me?

02:04:56.580 --> 02:04:57.580
 Page 81.

02:04:57.580 --> 02:04:58.580
 All right.

02:04:58.580 --> 02:04:59.580
 Thank you.

02:04:59.580 --> 02:05:25.380
 That is the second complete paragraph, first sentence.

02:05:25.380 --> 02:05:30.060
 We can't have questions from the impellent because that's me and I'm not, and I just

02:05:30.060 --> 02:05:31.060
 read it.

02:05:31.060 --> 02:05:32.060
 Fire response.

02:05:32.060 --> 02:05:38.660
 Direct quote from the book about to sustain the key.

02:05:38.660 --> 02:05:47.860
 Greg, do you have something?

02:05:47.860 --> 02:05:54.260
 I was just going to state as I read it, the question is not asking where leadership occurs.

02:05:54.260 --> 02:06:10.720
 It's asking who has the greatest impact.

02:06:10.720 --> 02:06:11.720
 Question commissioners?

02:06:11.720 --> 02:06:15.940
 I have no questions at this time.

02:06:15.940 --> 02:06:16.940
 Thank you.

02:06:16.940 --> 02:06:17.940
 No question.

02:06:17.940 --> 02:06:18.940
 Okay.

02:06:18.940 --> 02:06:27.460
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:06:27.460 --> 02:06:34.860
 The appeal says to include A as a correct answer.

02:06:34.860 --> 02:06:42.420
 Commissioners, I would entertain a motion.

02:06:42.420 --> 02:06:53.620
 I'll second discussion.

02:06:53.620 --> 02:06:57.380
 All in favor of sustaining the key of question 44.

02:06:57.380 --> 02:06:58.380
 Say I.

02:06:58.380 --> 02:06:59.380
 Opposed.

02:06:59.380 --> 02:07:00.380
 Okay.

02:07:00.380 --> 02:07:18.860
 Next is question 47, hang on here just a second.

02:07:18.860 --> 02:07:19.860
 All right.

02:07:19.860 --> 02:07:24.700
 Question 47, Mr. Atweiler.

02:07:24.700 --> 02:07:29.880
 I haven't seen that name.

02:07:29.880 --> 02:07:30.880
 Not here.

02:07:30.880 --> 02:07:41.500
 Oh, I'm sorry, there are two Mr. Davis, you're leading the charge again.

02:07:41.500 --> 02:07:46.300
 I'll just agree with battalion chief skipper.

02:07:46.300 --> 02:07:51.060
 Oh, let's see.

02:07:51.060 --> 02:07:55.420
 This is the one that has six.

02:07:55.420 --> 02:08:01.840
 All right, hang on just one second.

02:08:01.840 --> 02:08:16.020
 Yeah, let me, I'll come back to all of you, anyone that hasn't spoken yet, but prior response

02:08:16.020 --> 02:08:18.560
 is to accept A and B.

02:08:18.560 --> 02:08:35.280
 So now Mr. Davis, Mr. Jones, there you go, Mr. Jones.

02:08:35.280 --> 02:08:38.820
 Any comments?

02:08:38.820 --> 02:08:40.380
 I agree with the city's take on it.

02:08:40.380 --> 02:08:44.540
 I'd just like to point out that again, this is another example of not using rope memory.

02:08:44.540 --> 02:08:57.620
 Yep, Mr. Punches, he's not with us, Mr. Rimmer, Rimmer, Rimmer, I think it is, right?

02:08:57.620 --> 02:08:58.620
 It's Rimmer, sir.

02:08:58.620 --> 02:08:59.620
 Yes, sir.

02:08:59.620 --> 02:09:01.420
 I apologize if I mispronounced it.

02:09:01.420 --> 02:09:02.420
 Oh, you're fine.

02:09:02.420 --> 02:09:04.420
 I get it a lot.

02:09:04.420 --> 02:09:10.380
 No, I'd just like to second what Johnny Jones said about that we're teetering a fine line

02:09:10.380 --> 02:09:15.420
 between memorization.

02:09:15.420 --> 02:09:21.700
 Yep.

02:09:21.700 --> 02:09:26.740
 That's everybody, isn't it, Mr. Young?

02:09:26.740 --> 02:09:28.740
 Okay.

02:09:28.740 --> 02:09:34.660
 Can you hear me?

02:09:34.660 --> 02:09:36.140
 Yes, sir.

02:09:36.140 --> 02:09:41.300
 The department in their rebuttal has already accepted my answer that I said you should

02:09:41.300 --> 02:09:44.700
 accept crisis and adversity.

02:09:44.700 --> 02:09:48.460
 I would just like to point out that their argument for accepting this question is the

02:09:48.460 --> 02:09:52.940
 exact opposite of the last question I just appealed, that basically I said, hey, there's

02:09:52.940 --> 02:09:57.180
 two answers that work here, and now they're saying, even though it says it's a direct

02:09:57.180 --> 02:10:00.260
 quote in the book, we're going to accept another answer.

02:10:00.260 --> 02:10:04.400
 So in my opinion, the department is being wishy washy on what exactly they're accepting

02:10:04.400 --> 02:10:08.380
 and not accepting, but then they expect us to go by the letter of the law, and by God,

02:10:08.380 --> 02:10:10.140
 it has to be word for word out of the book.

02:10:10.140 --> 02:10:12.220
 I just think that that's a double standard.

02:10:12.220 --> 02:10:15.500
 That's my opinion.

02:10:15.500 --> 02:10:17.500
 Sorry.

02:10:17.500 --> 02:10:19.500
 Cole?

02:10:19.500 --> 02:10:21.500
 Yes, sir.

02:10:21.500 --> 02:10:28.140
 I just wanted to kind of go off of what he was saying, this question and the next question.

02:10:28.140 --> 02:10:32.720
 I completely agree with what he said, the department's standard or their reasoning for

02:10:32.720 --> 02:10:36.860
 the past, however many questions we've gone through already today have been direct quotes

02:10:36.860 --> 02:10:37.860
 from the book.

02:10:37.860 --> 02:10:42.660
 And if you turn to page 236, you can see it is word for word quote from the book, and

02:10:42.660 --> 02:10:45.540
 nowhere does it say adversity.

02:10:45.540 --> 02:10:50.980
 And even where they're saying that adversity is, or even where they're saying this entire

02:10:50.980 --> 02:10:55.420
 section is referring to adversity, I mean, I feel like they're going against what they've

02:10:55.420 --> 02:10:58.420
 been saying all day long.

02:10:58.420 --> 02:11:08.380
 Brett?

02:11:08.380 --> 02:11:16.620
 I think I'll sum it up for everybody on this meeting that this is collectively frustrating.

02:11:16.620 --> 02:11:23.180
 I think Chief came out and said that we're held to a standard of memorize.

02:11:23.180 --> 02:11:29.220
 But as Mr. Steve Young said, that it's a little bit frustrating to also be held to double

02:11:29.220 --> 02:11:30.220
 standard.

02:11:30.220 --> 02:11:35.540
 Now, I also agree with the motion to accept both answers, but we're also teetering a fine

02:11:35.540 --> 02:11:40.540
 line because I just pointed out on the last question that there is a specific sentence

02:11:40.540 --> 02:11:45.740
 that says layered leadership occurs from the middle of the organization and not from the

02:11:45.740 --> 02:11:46.740
 top.

02:11:46.740 --> 02:11:49.780
 So what are we being held to?

02:11:49.780 --> 02:11:52.980
 May I speak?

02:11:52.980 --> 02:11:53.980
 Absolutely.

02:11:53.980 --> 02:11:59.700
 If I'm looking at those other two questions, question 44 and 42, which I think are the

02:11:59.700 --> 02:12:05.420
 ones that everybody's referencing too, I can't justify, just on the appeals that some of

02:12:05.420 --> 02:12:10.420
 you guys wrote, some people actually went and defined the terms, defined the word diversity

02:12:10.420 --> 02:12:15.180
 and crisis, and found very similar definitions for them.

02:12:15.180 --> 02:12:19.780
 And so I agree with that, but if I go back, I can't make that same correlation between

02:12:19.780 --> 02:12:25.020
 a reward system and enthusiasm as two of the top choices that we're trying to be considered.

02:12:25.020 --> 02:12:32.740
 And then the layered leadership argument coming from the middle of an organization, 99% of

02:12:32.740 --> 02:12:36.980
 the leadership coming from the middle, that contradicts A, because A is saying who are

02:12:36.980 --> 02:12:37.980
 the company officers.

02:12:37.980 --> 02:12:42.380
 And it doesn't say company officers are in the middle or at the top or in the lower or

02:12:42.380 --> 02:12:43.380
 where.

02:12:43.380 --> 02:12:50.340
 So when I'm looking at these and I'm trying to understand and be objective and have you

02:12:50.340 --> 02:12:55.300
 in mind and have the department in mind and what the folks are saying, that's where my

02:12:55.300 --> 02:12:56.300
 votes are going from.

02:12:56.300 --> 02:12:58.380
 I'm trying to consider all of it.

02:12:58.380 --> 02:13:03.980
 But I agree that it is very frustrating, but these are not all, these last questions are

02:13:03.980 --> 02:13:04.980
 not the same.

02:13:04.980 --> 02:13:09.380
 The justification that the department uses is the same.

02:13:09.380 --> 02:13:12.900
 I don't really think that that's the best justification, just like I said on the other

02:13:12.900 --> 02:13:13.900
 one that I voted against.

02:13:13.900 --> 02:13:18.140
 And I think the department needs the change of justification, but the questions themselves

02:13:18.140 --> 02:13:20.300
 and the answer choices are not the same.

02:13:20.300 --> 02:13:26.220
 Adversity and crisis, I think whoever the six appeal appellants made a very good argument.

02:13:26.220 --> 02:13:29.900
 And that's why I put it at the beginning too, that whenever you're coming in, you're presenting

02:13:29.900 --> 02:13:33.860
 an argument to try to appeal the question, you're trying to convince us and see something

02:13:33.860 --> 02:13:37.020
 that we can't see on our own by looking just at the paper.

02:13:37.020 --> 02:13:41.260
 And so I appreciate the people that are trying to put forth a little bit more effort other

02:13:41.260 --> 02:13:44.740
 than just saying it's what I wrote.

02:13:44.740 --> 02:13:58.620
 So for me, it's not the same as 47 is not the same as 44 and 42.

02:13:58.620 --> 02:14:06.500
 I'll simply say that I'm glad that we have three of us overseeing the appeals process.

02:14:06.500 --> 02:14:12.140
 And I'm glad for the opportunity to have independent thought.

02:14:12.140 --> 02:14:21.540
 And I think we try very hard to take the position of each of the candidates when and where we

02:14:21.540 --> 02:14:22.540
 can.

02:14:22.540 --> 02:14:28.660
 And if we can't, then we don't.

02:14:28.660 --> 02:14:33.580
 I was just asking if we had actually gone to fire for their response.

02:14:33.580 --> 02:14:39.380
 I read it in but we need to go to them and let them officially read in their response.

02:14:39.380 --> 02:14:44.140
 So we'll go to fire.

02:14:44.140 --> 02:14:49.780
 Fire votes to accept A and B. The entire section is referring to adversity and the crisis quote

02:14:49.780 --> 02:14:51.820
 is embedded in this section.

02:14:51.820 --> 02:15:00.140
 The reader can come to the conclusion that crisis means the same thing as adversity in

02:15:00.140 --> 02:15:02.940
 this section.

02:15:02.940 --> 02:15:05.660
 Any other questions of fire?

02:15:05.660 --> 02:15:07.780
 No questions of fire.

02:15:07.780 --> 02:15:13.300
 Come in for me.

02:15:13.300 --> 02:15:14.780
 I'm here.

02:15:14.780 --> 02:15:15.780
 Okay.

02:15:15.780 --> 02:15:16.780
 I can't find you.

02:15:16.780 --> 02:15:17.780
 There you are.

02:15:17.780 --> 02:15:18.780
 You're back.

02:15:18.780 --> 02:15:19.780
 I'm getting coffee.

02:15:19.780 --> 02:15:20.780
 You weren't on my screen.

02:15:20.780 --> 02:15:21.780
 Okay.

02:15:21.780 --> 02:15:22.780
 Who did you say?

02:15:22.780 --> 02:15:23.780
 Cole?

02:15:23.780 --> 02:15:24.780
 Yes, sir.

02:15:24.780 --> 02:15:25.780
 Can you hear me?

02:15:25.780 --> 02:15:26.780
 Yes, sir.

02:15:26.780 --> 02:15:38.620
 Since now that fire has had their full response, I just wanted to kind of go back upon what

02:15:38.620 --> 02:15:43.460
 I said also in their response or reasoning to this one, they said the reader can come

02:15:43.460 --> 02:15:44.460
 to the conclusion.

02:15:44.460 --> 02:15:48.740
 Well, they just said earlier, no offense to Chief Skipper, but Chief Skipper just said

02:15:48.740 --> 02:15:52.100
 the department's stance is that we're here to memorize a certain thing.

02:15:52.100 --> 02:15:56.860
 So all the previous questions that we've sustained has been off of the memorization, but now

02:15:56.860 --> 02:16:01.380
 all of a sudden we're able to reason and figure out that there could be more than one even

02:16:01.380 --> 02:16:09.180
 though it is still a direct quote from the book.

02:16:09.180 --> 02:16:10.180
 Okay.

02:16:10.180 --> 02:16:11.180
 Thank you.

02:16:11.180 --> 02:16:12.180
 Who else?

02:16:12.180 --> 02:16:13.180
 Shay?

02:16:13.180 --> 02:16:19.420
 Well, again, sorry, I was just reading, I was trying to read through that section that

02:16:19.420 --> 02:16:25.820
 they were referring to, it says the entire section is referring to adversity and crisis.

02:16:25.820 --> 02:16:31.380
 Nowhere in here have I found where it says anything about the correlation or a relation

02:16:31.380 --> 02:16:38.580
 between adversity and being a revealer of character, but word for word in the book right

02:16:38.580 --> 02:16:42.180
 here, it's saying that crisis is the greatest revealer of character.

02:16:42.180 --> 02:16:48.740
 I mean, if we go off of the past practices of even just today, sustaining the key would

02:16:48.740 --> 02:16:54.500
 be the proper answer in this, in my opinion, just because it doesn't say anywhere else

02:16:54.500 --> 02:17:01.340
 in here about looking at a revealer of character and referring to adversity, but it does do

02:17:01.340 --> 02:17:05.020
 that on B, which is crisis.

02:17:05.020 --> 02:17:07.660
 Okay.

02:17:07.660 --> 02:17:10.660
 Thank you.

02:17:10.660 --> 02:17:15.760
 I would entertain a motion.

02:17:15.760 --> 02:17:22.300
 I move that we accept the department's decision to accept A and B.

02:17:22.300 --> 02:17:28.220
 I'll second that.

02:17:28.220 --> 02:17:29.820
 Okay.

02:17:29.820 --> 02:17:39.100
 Motion is to accept A and B. And it has been seconded in discussion, commissioners.

02:17:39.100 --> 02:17:46.780
 Like I said, I'm satisfied with the correlation of the definitions, both from the appellant

02:17:46.780 --> 02:17:52.180
 side and also from the department, where there's more correlation between adversity and crisis

02:17:52.180 --> 02:17:57.900
 than the other times that we've seen earlier in the questions and the appeals that have

02:17:57.900 --> 02:17:58.900
 been brought forth.

02:17:58.900 --> 02:18:03.740
 So I'm comfortable accepting both of those answers.

02:18:03.740 --> 02:18:10.580
 Anything else?

02:18:10.580 --> 02:18:15.220
 Can I petition for a five minute break?

02:18:15.220 --> 02:18:17.020
 Can we vote on this one first?

02:18:17.020 --> 02:18:19.340
 Oh, do we, do we didn't vote yet?

02:18:19.340 --> 02:18:20.340
 We haven't voted yet.

02:18:20.340 --> 02:18:28.860
 Motion is to accept A and B. All the favors say aye.

02:18:28.860 --> 02:18:29.860
 Aye.

02:18:29.860 --> 02:18:30.860
 Aye.

02:18:30.860 --> 02:18:31.860
 Opposed.

02:18:31.860 --> 02:18:32.860
 Okay.

02:18:32.860 --> 02:18:33.860
 Yes.

02:18:33.860 --> 02:18:35.500
 Can we take a five minute break, please?

02:18:35.500 --> 02:18:40.220
 I promise no more than five minutes.

02:18:40.220 --> 02:18:53.420
 Participants, participants, don't sign out.

02:18:53.420 --> 02:18:58.420
 That's a tough part of the question of this job.

02:18:58.420 --> 02:19:01.420
 Okay.

02:19:01.420 --> 02:19:19.340
 Next question to be appealed was question 53.

02:19:19.340 --> 02:19:35.500
 All right.

02:19:35.500 --> 02:19:40.500
 Where's Craig?

02:19:40.500 --> 02:19:49.100
 There he's, there he's back.

02:19:49.100 --> 02:19:54.020
 And then Shay, Shay back.

02:19:54.020 --> 02:19:58.220
 Yes, he's back.

02:19:58.220 --> 02:20:04.380
 Cassie, she's been waiting patiently.

02:20:04.380 --> 02:20:11.340
 John, and red's back.

02:20:11.340 --> 02:20:12.340
 Yep.

02:20:12.340 --> 02:20:15.780
 He's a trooper.

02:20:15.780 --> 02:20:17.740
 All right.

02:20:17.740 --> 02:20:18.740
 Next question.

02:20:18.740 --> 02:20:21.340
 We have commissioners, right?

02:20:21.340 --> 02:20:23.020
 Are we all back?

02:20:23.020 --> 02:20:25.740
 Yeah, there we go.

02:20:25.740 --> 02:20:30.580
 Next question to be appealed is question 53.

02:20:30.580 --> 02:20:40.100
 There are six appellants, Shay, no, let's let Cassie, she's been, she's been very patient

02:20:40.100 --> 02:20:42.140
 all day on this, this appeal.

02:20:42.140 --> 02:20:45.980
 So we'll let her start and kind of lead us off.

02:20:45.980 --> 02:20:49.260
 So yes, sir.

02:20:49.260 --> 02:20:55.940
 The question is, a blank can be a great asset to help a leader express appreciation for

02:20:55.940 --> 02:20:59.460
 an individual's efforts and contributions to the team.

02:20:59.460 --> 02:21:04.020
 In my appeal, I stated that the author makes a point to stress the importance of public

02:21:04.020 --> 02:21:06.380
 recognition to show appreciation.

02:21:06.380 --> 02:21:14.140
 He does that on pages 129 and 134 through 35, which I state or I quote later.

02:21:14.140 --> 02:21:19.180
 On page 137, he lists formal acknowledgments as a way to show appreciation.

02:21:19.180 --> 02:21:26.140
 On page 134, he has examples of former recognition, formal recognition, which includes ceremonies

02:21:26.140 --> 02:21:30.660
 and an award ceremony as an asset for expressing appreciation according to the statements made

02:21:30.660 --> 02:21:32.700
 by the author.

02:21:32.700 --> 02:21:38.140
 Shortly below that, I put all the pages and the quotes directly from the book that support

02:21:38.140 --> 02:21:41.060
 that argument.

02:21:41.060 --> 02:21:45.540
 Okay, thank you.

02:21:45.540 --> 02:21:47.540
 Shay.

02:21:47.540 --> 02:21:50.820
 Yes, sir.

02:21:50.820 --> 02:21:54.180
 I believe Casey explained that very well.

02:21:54.180 --> 02:21:55.180
 Not much more to add to that.

02:21:55.180 --> 02:22:01.540
 I mean, it clearly states on page 135, or I'm sorry, on page 137, two ways to show appreciation

02:22:01.540 --> 02:22:05.580
 formal method is one of those, so.

02:22:05.580 --> 02:22:11.300
 Okay, Craig, anything to add?

02:22:11.300 --> 02:22:18.860
 No, sir, I think they pretty much got it all.

02:22:18.860 --> 02:22:20.140
 I don't want to mute you guys.

02:22:20.140 --> 02:22:25.500
 I just want to make sure we move on.

02:22:25.500 --> 02:22:26.500
 John?

02:22:26.500 --> 02:22:29.140
 I appreciate Firefighter Hill, your coverage of it.

02:22:29.140 --> 02:22:31.900
 I think she did a good job.

02:22:31.900 --> 02:22:32.900
 Okay.

02:22:32.900 --> 02:22:33.900
 Brett.

02:22:33.900 --> 02:22:34.900
 Brett.

02:22:34.900 --> 02:22:41.340
 Okay, I second that.

02:22:41.340 --> 02:22:46.340
 This also went my favor, and moving forward, I just would like to grow on the department

02:22:46.340 --> 02:22:49.940
 on this because once again, this goes into my favor.

02:22:49.940 --> 02:22:55.020
 And I'm going to throw it out there that we're either memorizing directly where the page

02:22:55.020 --> 02:23:03.980
 is, states, or we're citing other useful information, which is concept.

02:23:03.980 --> 02:23:08.820
 Okay.

02:23:08.820 --> 02:23:09.820
 Fire response.

02:23:09.820 --> 02:23:18.700
 Oh, I'm sorry, commissioners, questions for the appellants?

02:23:18.700 --> 02:23:19.700
 No questions.

02:23:19.700 --> 02:23:25.300
 I think the number of appeals is kind of an indication.

02:23:25.300 --> 02:23:35.620
 So I'm thankful for all of the varied input that everyone took the time to provide.

02:23:35.620 --> 02:23:37.940
 Questions?

02:23:37.940 --> 02:23:41.140
 Other questions?

02:23:41.140 --> 02:23:42.140
 Fire response.

02:23:42.140 --> 02:23:46.740
 Will you vote to accept A and B?

02:23:46.740 --> 02:23:50.020
 Opposition and other places in the book, both are correct, while the book does not clearly

02:23:50.020 --> 02:23:55.380
 state award ceremony, it does state on page 137, two ways to show appreciation is informal

02:23:55.380 --> 02:23:56.860
 and formal settings.

02:23:56.860 --> 02:23:59.020
 A formal setting can be an award ceremony.

02:23:59.020 --> 02:24:05.500
 I'd also like to further say that the fire response will not differ from anything written

02:24:05.500 --> 02:24:13.340
 that is on the response sheet other than directly answering questions to the commissioners.

02:24:13.340 --> 02:24:17.500
 Okay.

02:24:17.500 --> 02:24:18.940
 Questions of fire?

02:24:18.940 --> 02:24:19.940
 Commissioners?

02:24:19.940 --> 02:24:23.220
 I have no questions at this time.

02:24:23.220 --> 02:24:24.220
 Thank you.

02:24:24.220 --> 02:24:25.220
 Okay.

02:24:25.220 --> 02:24:26.220
 Cole?

02:24:26.220 --> 02:24:29.060
 I understand you had a question.

02:24:29.060 --> 02:24:30.060
 Yes, sir.

02:24:30.060 --> 02:24:34.820
 I just wanted to kind of give my rebuttal to this.

02:24:34.820 --> 02:24:38.620
 Once again, we're kind of back to where we were with the previous question.

02:24:38.620 --> 02:24:44.420
 If you go to page 138, which is where the question comes from, it is a direct quote.

02:24:44.420 --> 02:24:50.500
 If you even look at the reasoning behind the department's response, it even admits that

02:24:50.500 --> 02:24:55.300
 the fact that the book does not clearly state award ceremony.

02:24:55.300 --> 02:25:04.380
 While it is back a few pages like Hillyard said earlier, it's not a direct quote.

02:25:04.380 --> 02:25:08.720
 That is leading you down the road that we've been down multiple times today with other

02:25:08.720 --> 02:25:10.980
 questions of connecting dots.

02:25:10.980 --> 02:25:14.780
 While I don't disagree that that's correct and I'm pretty confident that that's the way

02:25:14.780 --> 02:25:19.100
 this question is going to go and that it's going to be A and B, I just want to point

02:25:19.100 --> 02:25:23.440
 out that we're going back to where we were earlier and that everybody was in agreeance

02:25:23.440 --> 02:25:29.340
 of sustaining the key when we're allowed to connect dots and have our own thought processes

02:25:29.340 --> 02:25:30.460
 to get the answers.

02:25:30.460 --> 02:25:34.020
 We're kind of going back on that at this point and that's where this one's coming from.

02:25:34.020 --> 02:25:38.780
 You got to connect two or three dots within this chapter to get that and I don't disagree

02:25:38.780 --> 02:25:40.780
 with it, but I also don't think it's right.

02:25:40.780 --> 02:25:45.980
 I think the direct quote that we've gone with all day is on page 138 and clearly states

02:25:45.980 --> 02:25:52.140
 answer B is the only correct answer there.

02:25:52.140 --> 02:25:57.820
 Anyone else like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:25:57.820 --> 02:26:07.460
 Commissioners, I would entertain a motion.

02:26:07.460 --> 02:26:14.740
 I make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the department to accept A and B.

02:26:14.740 --> 02:26:28.820
 I will second, but I do agree with Mr. Hudson.

02:26:28.820 --> 02:26:29.820
 Discussion?

02:26:29.820 --> 02:26:30.820
 Do you want to move and second it?

02:26:30.820 --> 02:26:31.820
 Is there any discussion?

02:26:31.820 --> 02:26:36.560
 I'm not as easy on this question as the one before.

02:26:36.560 --> 02:26:42.700
 Like I said, I can, and even though instead when they looked up the word adversity and

02:26:42.700 --> 02:26:45.660
 crisis, they matched the definitions almost word for word.

02:26:45.660 --> 02:26:53.340
 And so that to me, more of a concise, you know, use of more synonyms and can be interpreted

02:26:53.340 --> 02:26:55.140
 either way.

02:26:55.140 --> 02:26:56.140
 This one is not.

02:26:56.140 --> 02:26:59.940
 Those are two completely different things and because it is a quote, I think that that's

02:26:59.940 --> 02:27:06.780
 where we start running into problems, but I know I think we've talked about this before.

02:27:06.780 --> 02:27:11.660
 You know, it's not so much the authors of the book, the makers of the test and the way

02:27:11.660 --> 02:27:15.260
 that the questions are framed.

02:27:15.260 --> 02:27:19.020
 I think that's what needs to be looked at.

02:27:19.020 --> 02:27:23.180
 But I mean, I don't oppose sustaining what the department is accepting to say that we

02:27:23.180 --> 02:27:28.660
 accept A and B, but I do caution that we need to be careful with this because we're in favor

02:27:28.660 --> 02:27:36.780
 of some, but not in favor of all.

02:27:36.780 --> 02:27:37.780
 Any other?

02:27:37.780 --> 02:27:38.780
 Excuse me.

02:27:38.780 --> 02:27:42.820
 Any discussion?

02:27:42.820 --> 02:27:48.040
 All in favor of accepting A and B for question 53, say aye.

02:27:48.040 --> 02:27:49.040
 Aye.

02:27:49.040 --> 02:27:50.040
 Aye.

02:27:50.040 --> 02:27:51.040
 Opposed?

02:27:51.040 --> 02:27:52.040
 Passes.

02:27:52.040 --> 02:28:10.020
 Question 54.

02:28:10.020 --> 02:28:18.300
 Okay Mr. Punches appealed this question.

02:28:18.300 --> 02:28:24.660
 Question successful organization depends very much on a leader's blank and the answers are

02:28:24.660 --> 02:28:33.780
 years of experience, outside political connections, ability to inspire, communication styles.

02:28:33.780 --> 02:28:40.820
 The answer to the question, the keyed answer to the question is ability to inspire.

02:28:40.820 --> 02:28:44.060
 That's answer C.

02:28:44.060 --> 02:28:52.620
 And Mr. Punches says that D is correct in addition and both should be allowed for credit.

02:28:52.620 --> 02:28:59.620
 His appeal says, I believe ability to inspire is correct, but ability to communicate and

02:28:59.620 --> 02:29:10.220
 the style of communication go together and each is needed to make the other effective.

02:29:10.220 --> 02:29:13.980
 Fire response.

02:29:13.980 --> 02:29:19.100
 To sustain the key, questions direct quote from the book, this is not a valid appeal.

02:29:19.100 --> 02:29:23.140
 The appellant does not make a valid argument for communication styles since it does not

02:29:23.140 --> 02:29:28.660
 attempt to show where in the text it states the communication styles of a leader is very

02:29:28.660 --> 02:29:35.740
 much dependent on the organization's success.

02:29:35.740 --> 02:29:38.860
 Questions of fire?

02:29:38.860 --> 02:29:47.240
 I have no questions of fire.

02:29:47.240 --> 02:29:57.660
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:29:57.660 --> 02:29:59.820
 Seeing none.

02:29:59.820 --> 02:30:06.620
 All in favor of accepting A, I'm sorry, sustaining the key for 54.

02:30:06.620 --> 02:30:10.420
 Do we make a motion?

02:30:10.420 --> 02:30:11.420
 No motion.

02:30:11.420 --> 02:30:14.420
 Did I skip -- got ahead of myself.

02:30:14.420 --> 02:30:17.980
 I would entertain a motion to do something.

02:30:17.980 --> 02:30:18.980
 Sorry.

02:30:18.980 --> 02:30:19.980
 I make a motion.

02:30:19.980 --> 02:30:20.980
 Go ahead.

02:30:20.980 --> 02:30:21.980
 Go ahead.

02:30:21.980 --> 02:30:25.780
 I was going to say the appellant is not here, right?

02:30:25.780 --> 02:30:26.780
 Correct.

02:30:26.780 --> 02:30:27.780
 Okay.

02:30:27.780 --> 02:30:33.140
 This would have been a good one.

02:30:33.140 --> 02:30:42.580
 I make a motion that we accept -- that we maintain the key, accept the key.

02:30:42.580 --> 02:30:43.580
 Sustain the key.

02:30:43.580 --> 02:30:47.380
 That's the correct word.

02:30:47.380 --> 02:30:50.180
 Getting late in the day.

02:30:50.180 --> 02:30:52.020
 Any discussion?

02:30:52.020 --> 02:30:54.480
 I do have some discussion here.

02:30:54.480 --> 02:31:01.980
 When I got to this question, I really liked D. But the book said C.

02:31:01.980 --> 02:31:15.340
 So and I believe that communication styles are related to ones ability to inspire.

02:31:15.340 --> 02:31:19.900
 I'm just thinking of -- and I'll be very blunt.

02:31:19.900 --> 02:31:28.340
 When I was in the military, some of the leaders said if you can't put together a string of

02:31:28.340 --> 02:31:36.100
 good expert leaders that you can't lead, that your inspiration was associated with -- I

02:31:36.100 --> 02:31:39.460
 just call it profanity.

02:31:39.460 --> 02:31:44.900
 And then there came along a different group of leaders who chose not to use profanity

02:31:44.900 --> 02:31:49.100
 but use a different style.

02:31:49.100 --> 02:31:59.060
 And I think -- so while communication is important, I think the bottom line is the ability to

02:31:59.060 --> 02:32:00.060
 inspire.

02:32:00.060 --> 02:32:07.420
 And so I said all that to say that I really thought a lot about this one, and even though

02:32:07.420 --> 02:32:16.820
 I would like to say communication styles are equally as important, I think the eventual

02:32:16.820 --> 02:32:19.380
 thing is that you have to have the ability to inspire.

02:32:19.380 --> 02:32:24.980
 But the book says the success of an organization depends very much on a leader's ability to

02:32:24.980 --> 02:32:25.980
 inspire.

02:32:25.980 --> 02:32:32.580
 So I had to go with sustainability.

02:32:32.580 --> 02:32:33.580
 Any other discussion?

02:32:33.580 --> 02:32:38.660
 I mean, I'm willing to sustain the key, but I did also like D. When I was looking at the

02:32:38.660 --> 02:32:44.340
 back of the book, there's tons of pages dedicated to communication styles, one of them being

02:32:44.340 --> 02:32:45.340
 assertiveness.

02:32:45.340 --> 02:32:49.980
 And if you're not an assertive communicator, people likely won't follow orders, and without

02:32:49.980 --> 02:32:51.660
 that, the department won't be successful.

02:32:51.660 --> 02:32:56.380
 But I mean, I think that's probably one of the big things that whenever you appeal, you

02:32:56.380 --> 02:33:00.140
 need to show up, you know, because this question could have really gone the other way.

02:33:00.140 --> 02:33:05.420
 But for today, we'll sustain the key, if that's the case.

02:33:05.420 --> 02:33:06.420
 Okay.

02:33:06.420 --> 02:33:09.180
 I'll accept that as a call to question.

02:33:09.180 --> 02:33:12.700
 All in favor of sustaining the key on 54, say aye.

02:33:12.700 --> 02:33:13.700
 Aye.

02:33:13.700 --> 02:33:14.700
 Aye.

02:33:14.700 --> 02:33:15.700
 Okay.

02:33:15.700 --> 02:33:16.700
 Okay.

02:33:16.700 --> 02:33:17.700
 Question 70.

02:33:17.700 --> 02:33:18.700
 Two repealants.

02:33:18.700 --> 02:33:19.700
 Do we lose Wade?

02:33:19.700 --> 02:33:20.700
 I'm here.

02:33:20.700 --> 02:33:21.700
 I would draw my appeal.

02:33:21.700 --> 02:33:22.700
 Okay.

02:33:22.700 --> 02:33:45.700
 Brett?

02:33:45.700 --> 02:34:02.900
 So, the answer is referenced on page 195, and previously when we were talking about a question

02:34:02.900 --> 02:34:12.620
 from the ISO book, it wasn't a direct sentence on number two, and it was the answer was actually

02:34:12.620 --> 02:34:19.820
 obtained from the titles of each, it was obtained from each subtitle from the main title, if

02:34:19.820 --> 02:34:21.620
 that makes any sense.

02:34:21.620 --> 02:34:30.060
 So the quality control of lumber is the title of this, meaning that anything following this

02:34:30.060 --> 02:34:32.340
 is fair game for answer.

02:34:32.340 --> 02:34:41.140
 So I think all of the above would qualify for the answer of this question.

02:34:41.140 --> 02:34:46.340
 And in conclusion, when the engineer is picking materials to construct a building, they are

02:34:46.340 --> 02:34:52.540
 not limited to just the strength and appearance of the lumber, okay?

02:34:52.540 --> 02:34:57.380
 They're also held to standard of cost and durability.

02:34:57.380 --> 02:35:04.380
 So that is a concept answer, and I realize that that is not word for word out of the

02:35:04.380 --> 02:35:05.380
 book.

02:35:05.380 --> 02:35:19.540
 So here we are again.

02:35:19.540 --> 02:35:20.540
 Questions for the appellant?

02:35:20.540 --> 02:35:30.140
 I don't have a question for the appellant, but that part that he quoted, it says lumber

02:35:30.140 --> 02:35:34.660
 can be graded, evaluated for both structural strength and appearance, but the question

02:35:34.660 --> 02:35:38.600
 here says lumber is graded, not can be graded.

02:35:38.600 --> 02:35:45.900
 I'm inclined to look at all of these other answers.

02:35:45.900 --> 02:35:48.100
 I'm sorry, Commissioner, you broke up on me.

02:35:48.100 --> 02:35:49.100
 What did you say?

02:35:49.100 --> 02:35:53.260
 That there's a difference between what the book states and how the question is stated,

02:35:53.260 --> 02:35:55.500
 even though it's saying that it's a direct clip from the book.

02:35:55.500 --> 02:36:01.500
 If you look at the book, at the part where the gentleman quoted under the quality control

02:36:01.500 --> 02:36:07.860
 of lumber, where lumber is in red, it says lumber can be graded, evaluated for both structural

02:36:07.860 --> 02:36:14.620
 strength and appearance, but this here on our question, it says lumber is graded on

02:36:14.620 --> 02:36:22.820
 the basis of the second sentence after, it says lumber with a higher grade is more costly.

02:36:22.820 --> 02:36:27.460
 So what I'm saying is I can be persuaded to have to accept more than one of these answers

02:36:27.460 --> 02:36:31.940
 because it's not word for word and it's not the same.

02:36:31.940 --> 02:36:37.020
 One is saying it can be, the other saying it is.

02:36:37.020 --> 02:36:42.860
 Okay, Greg, was it Greg?

02:36:42.860 --> 02:36:57.100
 Yeah, I was wondering where Rimmer cited that information about engineering choosing lumber.

02:36:57.100 --> 02:37:02.540
 And another point is the question is saying what are the criteria for grading lumber,

02:37:02.540 --> 02:37:06.700
 not the criteria an engineer uses for selecting lumber.

02:37:06.700 --> 02:37:20.700
 Brett, do you want to respond?

02:37:20.700 --> 02:37:39.580
 No response other than what I've already stated.

02:37:39.580 --> 02:37:44.780
 Like I said, the answer that I'm implying is that this is a concept question.

02:37:44.780 --> 02:37:51.300
 When you construct a building, I don't have the reference off the top of my head coil,

02:37:51.300 --> 02:37:59.140
 but it is not limited to just appearance of lumber and the strength.

02:37:59.140 --> 02:38:10.780
 I can give you a reference on the disadvantages of wood, which it says on page 182 that this

02:38:10.780 --> 02:38:19.900
 would imply that knots, knotholes, decay, insects, splits and warps are disadvantaged.

02:38:19.900 --> 02:38:26.960
 And then on page 183, it says that another factor affects wood strength is the load direction.

02:38:26.960 --> 02:38:31.660
 Wood is stronger parallel to the grain against the grain.

02:38:31.660 --> 02:38:41.540
 So I don't know how to answer your question, Cole.

02:38:41.540 --> 02:38:44.900
 Okay.

02:38:44.900 --> 02:38:48.100
 Other comments?

02:38:48.100 --> 02:38:52.020
 Seth?

02:38:52.020 --> 02:38:55.300
 I have a question, Chairman.

02:38:55.300 --> 02:38:56.620
 Yes, sir.

02:38:56.620 --> 02:39:04.620
 This is a question to the department.

02:39:04.620 --> 02:39:09.180
 And forgive me for being very, very basic in this question, but why would you include

02:39:09.180 --> 02:39:13.060
 such a question on a test like this?

02:39:13.060 --> 02:39:18.760
 Battalion Chief, you haven't?

02:39:18.760 --> 02:39:19.760
 I'm thinking, sir.

02:39:19.760 --> 02:39:20.760
 Okay.

02:39:20.760 --> 02:39:21.760
 Thank you.

02:39:21.760 --> 02:39:33.100
 I'm going to fall back on this information is in the source material that the fire department

02:39:33.100 --> 02:39:38.340
 decided that every firefighter should know, and it is all subject to being included on

02:39:38.340 --> 02:39:44.420
 the test, up to the copyright date of the book, if we so chose.

02:39:44.420 --> 02:39:50.700
 I'm sorry, my question probably was not a good one, so let me try again.

02:39:50.700 --> 02:40:03.460
 When testing or having your firemen, fire women, study, why is it important to know

02:40:03.460 --> 02:40:06.760
 about grading lumber?

02:40:06.760 --> 02:40:08.140
 What does that do?

02:40:08.140 --> 02:40:14.580
 Is that part of when you're going into a fire, or are you looking at general construction,

02:40:14.580 --> 02:40:20.260
 or is this part of the inspection aspect of a fire?

02:40:20.260 --> 02:40:25.380
 All aspects of the building construction book are related to the fire service.

02:40:25.380 --> 02:40:29.940
 For that purpose, what you just said, if we're going to have a fire in whatever given building,

02:40:29.940 --> 02:40:35.980
 we should know aspects of all different kinds of construction to include lumber, masonry,

02:40:35.980 --> 02:40:36.980
 steel construction.

02:40:36.980 --> 02:40:42.940
 There's five different basic levels of construction the fire service breaks it down into, but

02:40:42.940 --> 02:40:48.500
 all of these are just little nuggets of information that a firefighter would use to size up a building

02:40:48.500 --> 02:40:54.740
 and determine what kind of risk they're going to see as they go by the fire in that structure.

02:40:54.740 --> 02:40:56.900
 Let me come back with you another question.

02:40:56.900 --> 02:41:01.780
 Let's say, for example, I believe the fire department maintains records about building

02:41:01.780 --> 02:41:05.900
 construction, is that correct?

02:41:05.900 --> 02:41:08.900
 Some records around town?

02:41:08.900 --> 02:41:14.780
 The fire department will do pre-plans, they also do inspections, so we go and inspect

02:41:14.780 --> 02:41:19.420
 for fire safety, fire codes, that kind of thing, so that might be falling into what

02:41:19.420 --> 02:41:21.940
 you're thinking about there, sir.

02:41:21.940 --> 02:41:29.020
 So I'm thinking, and I'm just trying to get my arms around this piece of information,

02:41:29.020 --> 02:41:31.980
 why it's important and what you're going to use it for.

02:41:31.980 --> 02:41:37.700
 So let's say, for example, somewhere in your central record keeping, I own a building here

02:41:37.700 --> 02:41:42.100
 in town, and you say, look at John Bang's building and look at the construction that

02:41:42.100 --> 02:41:43.620
 it was made from.

02:41:43.620 --> 02:41:49.580
 So if you had to have a call, you would do a lookup and say, this building is class one,

02:41:49.580 --> 02:41:56.540
 class two, class three, class four, and you have a kind of a ready-made determination

02:41:56.540 --> 02:41:59.620
 of the risk, of the risk that you're dealing with.

02:41:59.620 --> 02:42:04.780
 So this is why it's important to understand the strength and the appearance, I would say.

02:42:04.780 --> 02:42:05.780
 Is that right?

02:42:05.780 --> 02:42:06.780
 Is that a fair statement?

02:42:06.780 --> 02:42:09.060
 I would say to factor into it, yes, sir.

02:42:09.060 --> 02:42:10.060
 Okay.

02:42:10.060 --> 02:42:15.340
 So let me kind of take the long way to get to that answer.

02:42:15.340 --> 02:42:18.700
 No problem.

02:42:18.700 --> 02:42:22.620
 Any other questions of the appellant?

02:42:22.620 --> 02:42:26.300
 All right.

02:42:26.300 --> 02:42:30.780
 We'll go to fire for their response.

02:42:30.780 --> 02:42:33.820
 To sustain the key, the question is a direct quote from the book.

02:42:33.820 --> 02:42:36.980
 The book clearly states that lumber is graded based on strength and appearance.

02:42:36.980 --> 02:42:40.580
 The appeal is trying to attempt to speak to lumber, and wood panel products are the same

02:42:40.580 --> 02:42:42.180
 thing, which is false.

02:42:42.180 --> 02:42:47.460
 On page 187, under the panel section, it clearly states that wood panel products differ greatly

02:42:47.460 --> 02:42:56.660
 from solid dimensional lumber.

02:42:56.660 --> 02:43:04.140
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

02:43:04.140 --> 02:43:09.380
 Yes, sir.

02:43:09.380 --> 02:43:10.820
 I had my hand raised earlier.

02:43:10.820 --> 02:43:18.860
 I was just going to point out the paragraph right after where it says lumber, let's see,

02:43:18.860 --> 02:43:22.660
 lumber can be graded for both structural strength and appearance.

02:43:22.660 --> 02:43:28.540
 The next paragraph in the first sentence also says wood panel products are also graded for

02:43:28.540 --> 02:43:35.500
 their structural use and their exposure durability, which would make me think that B and C would

02:43:35.500 --> 02:43:39.220
 be correct.

02:43:39.220 --> 02:43:42.300
 Okay.

02:43:42.300 --> 02:43:45.500
 Cole.

02:43:45.500 --> 02:43:51.060
 Yes, sir.

02:43:51.060 --> 02:43:55.020
 I kind of wanted to address what Commissioner Lillian had asked about earlier, where it

02:43:55.020 --> 02:43:57.300
 said they can be.

02:43:57.300 --> 02:44:03.180
 If you look on page 195 at the top right is the actual definition for lumber, and at the

02:44:03.180 --> 02:44:11.440
 end of the definition after a semicolon, it says items are graded for strength and appearance.

02:44:11.440 --> 02:44:15.940
 Between the two of those, between in the text and in the definition, in my opinion, the

02:44:15.940 --> 02:44:22.220
 definition is more of something that would be able to hold up than in the text, because

02:44:22.220 --> 02:44:26.500
 as we've seen for everybody that's read these books, there's lots of typos, I mean, it's

02:44:26.500 --> 02:44:34.340
 humans that are writing those instead of necessarily copying and pasting the definitions.

02:44:34.340 --> 02:44:40.460
 I do, I had a question, so after looking at that and then saying it's graded, which basically

02:44:40.460 --> 02:44:45.740
 means it's evaluated, so lumber is evaluated on the base of strength and appearance is

02:44:45.740 --> 02:44:49.140
 what the book says, right?

02:44:49.140 --> 02:44:50.140
 Okay.

02:44:50.140 --> 02:44:51.140
 Yes.

02:44:51.140 --> 02:44:56.160
 So the results of that evaluation would be the cost, how much cost, how much that piece

02:44:56.160 --> 02:44:58.380
 of lumber would cost, right?

02:44:58.380 --> 02:45:02.300
 Am I on the right track thinking?

02:45:02.300 --> 02:45:07.440
 So Lillian, who are you addressing?

02:45:07.440 --> 02:45:14.420
 I'm just talking, because I'm trying to rule out, because one of the appeals is that we

02:45:14.420 --> 02:45:19.500
 would accept all the answers, and one of them is that we would accept C, so I'm inclined

02:45:19.500 --> 02:45:25.460
 to accept C. I'm trying to understand why I wouldn't say that all of the answers should

02:45:25.460 --> 02:45:27.420
 be accepted.

02:45:27.420 --> 02:45:38.060
 So A and D are talking about cost, but cost comes after the evaluation.

02:45:38.060 --> 02:45:43.020
 So it's not that they're being evaluated on how much the cost, the cost is after, so lumber

02:45:43.020 --> 02:45:48.180
 is evaluated on the basis of strength and appearance, strength and durability, which

02:45:48.180 --> 02:45:53.820
 to me without appearance, which we can make a case for, that I'm more inclined to accepting

02:45:53.820 --> 02:45:57.340
 B and C than I would to accept all the answers.

02:45:57.340 --> 02:46:01.580
 Lillian, we're just talking, right?

02:46:01.580 --> 02:46:03.140
 Okay.

02:46:03.140 --> 02:46:11.620
 So and that kind of gets back to why I was asking the question about evaluations, but

02:46:11.620 --> 02:46:16.580
 I don't think the fire department worries about cost as much as they worry about strength

02:46:16.580 --> 02:46:24.620
 and durability when you're looking at potential fire hazards, or how quickly a fire would

02:46:24.620 --> 02:46:25.620
 spread.

02:46:25.620 --> 02:46:27.980
 No, I'm a novice.

02:46:27.980 --> 02:46:36.660
 I'm not a person that does a lot of construction, but I've always heard that handling was not

02:46:36.660 --> 02:46:40.900
 as durable necessarily as your lumber.

02:46:40.900 --> 02:46:46.820
 Let me jump in for just a second.

02:46:46.820 --> 02:46:52.940
 John hold that thought, let's do the procedure and then we can get to our discussion.

02:46:52.940 --> 02:46:56.740
 You're kind of ahead of me in that, so let's hold your thought though.

02:46:56.740 --> 02:46:57.740
 All right.

02:46:57.740 --> 02:47:06.660
 Is there anyone like to speak against the appeal?

02:47:06.660 --> 02:47:14.580
 I would entertain a motion on question 70.

02:47:14.580 --> 02:47:15.580
 You're muted.

02:47:15.580 --> 02:47:24.900
 I make a motion that we accept B and C as answers.

02:47:24.900 --> 02:47:26.700
 I'll second that motion.

02:47:26.700 --> 02:47:27.700
 All right.

02:47:27.700 --> 02:47:29.060
 Now we can have the discussion.

02:47:29.060 --> 02:47:39.700
 Now we're back in track.

02:47:39.700 --> 02:47:42.980
 If I were a firefighter, I'd want to know about the strength for sure.

02:47:42.980 --> 02:47:48.100
 I guess I'm not as concerned about the appearance.

02:47:48.100 --> 02:47:53.260
 Probably I am a little bit about the durability, but I certainly want to know about the strength

02:47:53.260 --> 02:47:59.660
 before I walk into a building in that same paragraph, it makes reference why they would

02:47:59.660 --> 02:48:00.660
 want to know.

02:48:00.660 --> 02:48:05.780
 I would think it says in a given structure, only a few critical columns or beams may require

02:48:05.780 --> 02:48:06.780
 high structural grade.

02:48:06.780 --> 02:48:11.020
 If I'm going into a building that I think is going to fall down, I'm looking at those

02:48:11.020 --> 02:48:15.140
 main columns to make sure that it's going to sustain it and gauge how much time I have

02:48:15.140 --> 02:48:17.260
 to get and get out.

02:48:17.260 --> 02:48:21.980
 But the question, and I know why you're asking this because why is it even relevant, right?

02:48:21.980 --> 02:48:24.860
 Because it's a question that we need to throw out because they may not even be relevant

02:48:24.860 --> 02:48:25.860
 to firefighters.

02:48:25.860 --> 02:48:30.980
 But I think if it's going to talk about that and make reference to the columns, then I

02:48:30.980 --> 02:48:32.380
 think it is relevant.

02:48:32.380 --> 02:48:34.180
 The question is very basic though.

02:48:34.180 --> 02:48:36.740
 Lumber is graded on the basis of what?

02:48:36.740 --> 02:48:39.020
 It's evaluated on the basis of what?

02:48:39.020 --> 02:48:45.860
 On strength and appearance, and I can make an argument for strength and durability.

02:48:45.860 --> 02:48:46.860
 And I'm okay with that.

02:48:46.860 --> 02:48:52.180
 And that's where I was, I'm just trying to see why this is relevant.

02:48:52.180 --> 02:48:57.740
 I mean, you have to be able to do a quick study or either you have records that indicate

02:48:57.740 --> 02:49:03.660
 what kind of risk you're going into, you know?

02:49:03.660 --> 02:49:05.660
 And that's why they need to know it.

02:49:05.660 --> 02:49:08.540
 That's why it's in there so that they're aware of it.

02:49:08.540 --> 02:49:12.500
 I mean, over the years, again, I'll go back to my experience.

02:49:12.500 --> 02:49:19.740
 I've learned a lot about building construction that I wondered, that I never thought about

02:49:19.740 --> 02:49:25.980
 before until I was thinking and trying to think in terms of a fire person and how they

02:49:25.980 --> 02:49:28.860
 would go into a building and what they need to know.

02:49:28.860 --> 02:49:34.580
 So I think that's why the durability, and that's not our decision to make.

02:49:34.580 --> 02:49:38.220
 That's the fire department's decision as to whether it's relevant or not.

02:49:38.220 --> 02:49:42.900
 If it's not relevant, then they take it out of the testing.

02:49:42.900 --> 02:49:50.460
 Okay, then there's a motion on the floor.

02:49:50.460 --> 02:49:58.820
 I'll allow because of what I promised earlier, who do we have, Cole?

02:49:58.820 --> 02:50:02.260
 Yes, sir.

02:50:02.260 --> 02:50:05.980
 The way that I'm kind of looking at the way lumber is graded, and I see what y'all are

02:50:05.980 --> 02:50:09.740
 saying as far as the fire department, but going back to what Chief Skipper said a minute

02:50:09.740 --> 02:50:15.300
 ago, the way that these tests are written, we are able to be tested on the copyright

02:50:15.300 --> 02:50:19.940
 date of the book if that just happens to be one of the questions that comes up.

02:50:19.940 --> 02:50:22.940
 Is that necessary for something on the fire ground?

02:50:22.940 --> 02:50:23.940
 Absolutely not.

02:50:23.940 --> 02:50:24.940
 Everybody would agree with that.

02:50:24.940 --> 02:50:27.860
 However, that is still a possibility for a question.

02:50:27.860 --> 02:50:34.820
 Also, when it comes to how lumber is graded, it's not necessarily graded for the fire service.

02:50:34.820 --> 02:50:37.260
 It's graded for construction companies.

02:50:37.260 --> 02:50:42.140
 So if you go to Lowe's or you go to Home Depot and you walk in there, just because it's graded

02:50:42.140 --> 02:50:47.740
 for a certain thing, it's graded for what the answer is, strength and appearance.

02:50:47.740 --> 02:50:51.900
 Not graded for the fire service, and I think that's kind of where the difference comes

02:50:51.900 --> 02:50:54.020
 in there.

02:50:54.020 --> 02:50:56.420
 Okay.

02:50:56.420 --> 02:50:58.940
 Thank you, Cole.

02:50:58.940 --> 02:51:00.460
 Casey?

02:51:00.460 --> 02:51:06.980
 I was pretty much going to say what Cole said.

02:51:06.980 --> 02:51:07.980
 Okay.

02:51:07.980 --> 02:51:08.980
 Shay?

02:51:08.980 --> 02:51:13.500
 Yeah, I think Cole kind of hit it.

02:51:13.500 --> 02:51:18.500
 It says in the book, if we start going off of something that's different, I mean, it

02:51:18.500 --> 02:51:23.020
 just says right there in the book, in two spots, it says the same thing, almost exactly,

02:51:23.020 --> 02:51:25.860
 that they're graded for strength and appearance.

02:51:25.860 --> 02:51:30.580
 It says nothing about the durability, nothing about the cost in that sentence or in those

02:51:30.580 --> 02:51:35.380
 parts when it's talking about how the lumber is actually graded.

02:51:35.380 --> 02:51:38.740
 All it says is strength and appearance.

02:51:38.740 --> 02:51:45.580
 So I vote that we sustain the key on that one.

02:51:45.580 --> 02:51:49.940
 You don't get to vote.

02:51:49.940 --> 02:51:50.940
 Good thought, though.

02:51:50.940 --> 02:51:53.380
 Keep that in mind.

02:51:53.380 --> 02:51:58.060
 It was worth a shot.

02:51:58.060 --> 02:51:59.060
 Rhett?

02:51:59.060 --> 02:52:00.060
 Good shot.

02:52:00.060 --> 02:52:01.060
 Good shot.

02:52:01.060 --> 02:52:02.060
 Yes, sir.

02:52:02.060 --> 02:52:09.340
 I'll try to make this as brief as possible because I know that, yes, I have no leg to

02:52:09.340 --> 02:52:19.060
 stand on if you're going to grade the answer on a specific sentence, but in the fire service,

02:52:19.060 --> 02:52:22.100
 this is a concept field of work.

02:52:22.100 --> 02:52:29.520
 And when you're looking at a building and the engineers, this is not from the book.

02:52:29.520 --> 02:52:35.940
 This is a whole encompassing process of building construction from the book.

02:52:35.940 --> 02:52:42.420
 This book, other books of building construction that we have been tested on and from personal

02:52:42.420 --> 02:52:43.460
 experience.

02:52:43.460 --> 02:52:49.780
 When an engineer designs a building and he uses lumber, he is at liberty to engineer

02:52:49.780 --> 02:52:56.660
 that building based off of cost, structural strength, durability.

02:52:56.660 --> 02:53:02.540
 And what is the other one, appearance, I guess.

02:53:02.540 --> 02:53:07.300
 Appearance is a primary answer here.

02:53:07.300 --> 02:53:11.740
 We're going to hold our building based off its appearance.

02:53:11.740 --> 02:53:16.900
 So I know that whenever I go into a building, I'm not going to judge it by its appearance,

02:53:16.900 --> 02:53:22.380
 but its skeleton framework and all of it as an encompassing, that's what the engineer

02:53:22.380 --> 02:53:23.380
 is.

02:53:23.380 --> 02:53:29.780
 So, you know, back to quality control of lumber is the title.

02:53:29.780 --> 02:53:36.340
 Now we've already referenced in the past that on number two, the ISO book, the answers were

02:53:36.340 --> 02:53:41.100
 not a direct sentence, it was actually subtitles of the main title.

02:53:41.100 --> 02:53:48.340
 So I would like to urge from this point forward, regardless of the outcome, that us as a department

02:53:48.340 --> 02:53:53.960
 need to determine where our common ground is going to be.

02:53:53.960 --> 02:53:56.620
 So that's all I have.

02:53:56.620 --> 02:53:57.620
 >> Okay.

02:53:57.620 --> 02:54:00.820
 Was there another one?

02:54:00.820 --> 02:54:01.820
 Okay.

02:54:01.820 --> 02:54:09.780
 There's a motion to the commissioners, there's a motion on the floor to accept B and C.

02:54:09.780 --> 02:54:17.220
 Cole, did you just raise your hand?

02:54:17.220 --> 02:54:18.220
 >> Yes, sir.

02:54:18.220 --> 02:54:19.220
 I'm sorry.

02:54:19.220 --> 02:54:20.220
 I won't waste your time a whole lot.

02:54:20.220 --> 02:54:25.180
 Remember, I mean no disrespect to you personally, I would just like to point out that the references

02:54:25.180 --> 02:54:29.500
 he threw out on that last one were not based out of this book, which we are tested out

02:54:29.500 --> 02:54:30.500
 of.

02:54:30.500 --> 02:54:35.340
 I understand personal experience and I understand his points, but I just wanted to throw that

02:54:35.340 --> 02:54:41.980
 out there before we make a final decision here.

02:54:41.980 --> 02:54:47.380
 >> Again, there's a motion on the floor that we're in discussion.

02:54:47.380 --> 02:54:53.640
 The only reference that I see on this page, now I obviously haven't read the book like

02:54:53.640 --> 02:54:58.020
 these guys have, these folks have.

02:54:58.020 --> 02:55:06.260
 The durability issue, the word durability comes about in discussion of wood paneling,

02:55:06.260 --> 02:55:12.500
 wood panel products, not lumber.

02:55:12.500 --> 02:55:19.580
 So the durability, strength is in both, but the one that comes out as the definition for

02:55:19.580 --> 02:55:25.300
 grading of lumber is strength and appearance.

02:55:25.300 --> 02:55:30.500
 Now that being said, the motion on the floor is to accept B and C.

02:55:30.500 --> 02:55:34.860
 >> But before we vote, can I ask one more question, Chair?

02:55:34.860 --> 02:55:35.860
 >> Sure.

02:55:35.860 --> 02:55:36.860
 We're still in discussion.

02:55:36.860 --> 02:55:37.860
 >> Okay.

02:55:37.860 --> 02:55:47.740
 On page 195, there are some pictures there, and it has these titles, APA, APA, APA, and

02:55:47.740 --> 02:56:01.940
 then it says 24OC, 4824, 16OC, what are those?

02:56:01.940 --> 02:56:06.200
 >> The span rating, Cole?

02:56:06.200 --> 02:56:08.420
 >> What does that mean?

02:56:08.420 --> 02:56:09.420
 >> I don't know.

02:56:09.420 --> 02:56:10.980
 Just reading the book.

02:56:10.980 --> 02:56:14.620
 Cole, can you enlighten us?

02:56:14.620 --> 02:56:17.340
 >> So all of those are the stamps on the wood.

02:56:17.340 --> 02:56:20.060
 And underneath it gives a listing of everything it is.

02:56:20.060 --> 02:56:25.780
 It could be anything from the mill that it came from to the grain orientation indicator.

02:56:25.780 --> 02:56:32.100
 But if you look at number one on that gray, grayed out piece in figure 7.25 that you're

02:56:32.100 --> 02:56:35.140
 talking about, it has the panel grade.

02:56:35.140 --> 02:56:41.560
 So while it looks like there's a lot more there, not all of that is the grading.

02:56:41.560 --> 02:56:52.700
 So tell me about 7.24, figure 7.24.

02:56:52.700 --> 02:56:53.700
 >> I'm sorry.

02:56:53.700 --> 02:56:55.620
 I thought we were looking at 7.25.

02:56:55.620 --> 02:56:56.620
 >> I was.

02:56:56.620 --> 02:56:57.700
 But it's all numbers.

02:56:57.700 --> 02:57:02.940
 And I'm just -- to me, it appears they're trying to impart some type of information

02:57:02.940 --> 02:57:03.940
 to us.

02:57:03.940 --> 02:57:08.820
 And I didn't know if this -- when you go into a -- do you look at this?

02:57:08.820 --> 02:57:13.660
 Do you memorize this?

02:57:13.660 --> 02:57:15.500
 What's the benefit of these numbers?

02:57:15.500 --> 02:57:17.220
 >> All right.

02:57:17.220 --> 02:57:22.300
 >> That I'm not sure I can answer.

02:57:22.300 --> 02:57:28.420
 I'm talking about engineers versus these.

02:57:28.420 --> 02:57:29.420
 >> Figure --

02:57:29.420 --> 02:57:31.620
 >> We're working on your answer, John.

02:57:31.620 --> 02:57:32.620
 >> Thank you.

02:57:32.620 --> 02:57:33.620
 I was just clarifying.

02:57:33.620 --> 02:57:38.660
 Figure 7.24, and then you go down to 7.25, you have lots of numbers and information.

02:57:38.660 --> 02:57:40.820
 They're trying to impart something to us.

02:57:40.820 --> 02:57:42.140
 They're trying to tell us something.

02:57:42.140 --> 02:57:53.240
 And I'm trying to understand what it is they're telling us.

02:57:53.240 --> 02:57:54.240
 >> I'm going to speak --

02:57:54.240 --> 02:57:59.820
 >> I was asking -- I was asking kind of a both in the sense that this would be stamped

02:57:59.820 --> 02:58:07.720
 on the -- the APA rating thing would be stamped on the wood, which is the picture up here.

02:58:07.720 --> 02:58:10.140
 But can we interpret this?

02:58:10.140 --> 02:58:12.980
 Is this 220C?

02:58:12.980 --> 02:58:15.500
 As opposed to -- is that the span rating?

02:58:15.500 --> 02:58:25.420
 >> I'm going to go with span rating for that, but I don't know -- I can't because it says

02:58:25.420 --> 02:58:26.420
 that it's -- indicate all of them there.

02:58:26.420 --> 02:58:27.420
 But the rate -- the grade specifically says it's rated for sheeting.

02:58:27.420 --> 02:58:36.420
 So, you know, it's -- that panel that would have that -- whether it's OSB or sheet apply

02:58:36.420 --> 02:58:47.380
 would be graded -- rated for sheeting and construction using as a sheeting product.

02:58:47.380 --> 02:58:56.900
 >> So if -- if I understand this and maybe, John, there's the -- the picture of the -- of

02:58:56.900 --> 02:58:57.900
 the plank --

02:58:57.900 --> 02:58:58.900
 >> Yes.

02:58:58.900 --> 02:59:03.060
 >> -- in 24 is lumber.

02:59:03.060 --> 02:59:04.460
 >> Yes.

02:59:04.460 --> 02:59:15.100
 >> The stamps that would appear on the back of paneling or plywood would be 25.

02:59:15.100 --> 02:59:16.100
 Is that a correct?

02:59:16.100 --> 02:59:17.100
 >> Yeah.

02:59:17.100 --> 02:59:22.040
 >> This would be what's on lumber.

02:59:22.040 --> 02:59:24.140
 This would be what would be on paneling or plywood?

02:59:24.140 --> 02:59:31.500
 >> I think lumber is a more generalized term that includes a beam like this or plywood.

02:59:31.500 --> 02:59:32.500
 >> Okay.

02:59:32.500 --> 02:59:35.100
 >> It could include everything.

02:59:35.100 --> 02:59:37.460
 So a general term, specific term.

02:59:37.460 --> 02:59:45.020
 >> So a -- so a 724 could be a -- a two by six?

02:59:45.020 --> 02:59:47.020
 >> Yes.

02:59:47.020 --> 02:59:51.140
 >> But 725 would be a panel sheeting.

02:59:51.140 --> 02:59:52.140
 A piece of plywood.

02:59:52.140 --> 02:59:53.140
 >> Okay.

02:59:53.140 --> 02:59:54.140
 >> Half-inch plywood or something.

02:59:54.140 --> 02:59:55.140
 >> Okay.

02:59:55.140 --> 02:59:57.180
 So now this brings me to my final question.

02:59:57.180 --> 02:59:58.180
 Okay?

02:59:58.180 --> 02:59:59.180
 >> Wow.

02:59:59.180 --> 03:00:00.180
 [ Laughter ]

03:00:00.180 --> 03:00:03.700
 >> You weren't supposed to hear that.

03:00:03.700 --> 03:00:04.700
 [ Laughter ]

03:00:04.700 --> 03:00:08.140
 >> It brings me to my final question.

03:00:08.140 --> 03:00:13.620
 So when I look at that, am I looking at strength and appearance or am I looking at strength

03:00:13.620 --> 03:00:15.620
 and durability in 724?

03:00:15.620 --> 03:00:16.620
 >> Okay.

03:00:16.620 --> 03:00:17.620
 >> Right there?

03:00:17.620 --> 03:00:18.620
 >> Yes.

03:00:18.620 --> 03:00:19.620
 724.

03:00:19.620 --> 03:00:30.420
 >> I can't tell you which one specifically is the grade because I just did not -- on

03:00:30.420 --> 03:00:31.420
 that stand.

03:00:31.420 --> 03:00:37.680
 This one listed out specifically, but I couldn't tell you exactly what this part right here

03:00:37.680 --> 03:00:42.380
 or this part right here, the KDHT, I'm not sure what that stands for.

03:00:42.380 --> 03:00:45.620
 So I can't look at that and tell you what the grade is on that stand.

03:00:45.620 --> 03:00:48.100
 I just don't have enough knowledge to answer that question.

03:00:48.100 --> 03:00:52.060
 The 22 is probably strength.

03:00:52.060 --> 03:00:53.060
 Whatever that is.

03:00:53.060 --> 03:00:54.060
 >> Okay.

03:00:54.060 --> 03:00:55.060
 >> Whatever the span rating is.

03:00:55.060 --> 03:00:56.060
 >> Thank you.

03:00:56.060 --> 03:01:01.020
 >> Span ratings are different for roof, ceiling, and subflooring because roof supports are

03:01:01.020 --> 03:01:04.500
 often spaced wider apart than floor supports.

03:01:04.500 --> 03:01:05.500
 So.

03:01:05.500 --> 03:01:06.500
 >> Thank you.

03:01:06.500 --> 03:01:11.820
 Thank you for taking my time -- taking the time.

03:01:11.820 --> 03:01:14.060
 >> Now do you know anymore about how your house is built?

03:01:14.060 --> 03:01:15.060
 >> No.

03:01:15.060 --> 03:01:16.060
 I'm just trying to answer this question.

03:01:16.060 --> 03:01:17.060
 I'm trying to get there.

03:01:17.060 --> 03:01:18.060
 >> I'm with you.

03:01:18.060 --> 03:01:19.060
 All right.

03:01:19.060 --> 03:01:34.980
 There is a motion on the floor to accept B and C as acceptable answers.

03:01:34.980 --> 03:01:36.780
 Are we ready to vote?

03:01:36.780 --> 03:01:37.780
 >> Yes.

03:01:37.780 --> 03:01:45.340
 >> All in favor of accepting B and C, say aye.

03:01:45.340 --> 03:01:47.340
 Opposed?

03:01:47.340 --> 03:01:49.620
 >> Nay.

03:01:49.620 --> 03:01:50.860
 >> Nay.

03:01:50.860 --> 03:01:51.860
 So the motion fails.

03:01:51.860 --> 03:01:54.860
 >> Let's go the other direction.

03:01:54.860 --> 03:01:55.860
 >> All right.

03:01:55.860 --> 03:02:01.180
 >> I'll make a motion that we sustain the key.

03:02:01.180 --> 03:02:04.620
 >> I'll second.

03:02:04.620 --> 03:02:06.780
 Any other discussion?

03:02:06.780 --> 03:02:10.100
 Now we turn it around and rediscuss.

03:02:10.100 --> 03:02:11.100
 >> I'm done.

03:02:11.100 --> 03:02:12.100
 I'm good.

03:02:12.100 --> 03:02:13.100
 >> No.

03:02:13.100 --> 03:02:16.740
 I don't have -- I mean, that's the -- we need to give chance.

03:02:16.740 --> 03:02:17.740
 >> Oh.

03:02:17.740 --> 03:02:18.740
 Absolutely.

03:02:18.740 --> 03:02:19.740
 Absolutely.

03:02:19.740 --> 03:02:25.060
 >> To me, I think that strength and durability are synonyms.

03:02:25.060 --> 03:02:28.060
 They're the same thing.

03:02:28.060 --> 03:02:33.020
 And it's saying here that it can be -- the lumber can be graded, evaluated based on strength

03:02:33.020 --> 03:02:34.020
 and appearance.

03:02:34.020 --> 03:02:36.340
 Therefore, strength and durability are the same.

03:02:36.340 --> 03:02:40.820
 Can lumber be, like someone said, and appearance not be taken into consideration and still

03:02:40.820 --> 03:02:41.820
 be graded, still be evaluated?

03:02:41.820 --> 03:02:42.820
 Yes, I think it can.

03:02:42.820 --> 03:02:47.620
 So that's the only reason I would say accept that.

03:02:47.620 --> 03:02:48.940
 >> Okay.

03:02:48.940 --> 03:02:53.340
 Are we ready to vote again?

03:02:53.340 --> 03:02:54.340
 Motion on the floor now.

03:02:54.340 --> 03:02:55.340
 John, do you have something?

03:02:55.340 --> 03:02:56.340
 >> No, no, no.

03:02:56.340 --> 03:03:01.620
 You have to ask me if I was ready, and I'll give you the sign.

03:03:01.620 --> 03:03:02.620
 >> Okay.

03:03:02.620 --> 03:03:07.540
 Motion now on the floor for item 70 is to sustain the key.

03:03:07.540 --> 03:03:09.420
 All in favor, say aye.

03:03:09.420 --> 03:03:10.420
 >> Aye.

03:03:10.420 --> 03:03:11.420
 >> Aye.

03:03:11.420 --> 03:03:14.540
 >> Opposed?

03:03:14.540 --> 03:03:21.260
 >> Nay.

03:03:21.260 --> 03:03:24.220
 >> Motion carries to sustain the key.

03:03:24.220 --> 03:03:27.100
 All right.

03:03:27.100 --> 03:03:30.860
 Next question is 75.

03:03:30.860 --> 03:03:38.500
 Rhett, since you're here, you get to lead the discussion here.

03:03:38.500 --> 03:03:43.500
 Oh, gosh, I was not prepared for this one.

03:03:43.500 --> 03:03:44.500
 Sorry.

03:03:44.500 --> 03:03:45.500
 I zoned out.

03:03:45.500 --> 03:03:46.500
 75.

03:03:46.500 --> 03:03:47.500
 Oh, okay.

03:03:47.500 --> 03:03:56.980
 Well, I got good news and bad news.

03:03:56.980 --> 03:04:01.660
 Unfortunately, this will be my last question, but the good news is you won't have to listen

03:04:01.660 --> 03:04:02.660
 to me anymore.

03:04:02.660 --> 03:04:03.660
 That's not an issue.

03:04:03.660 --> 03:04:04.660
 >> It's not an issue for me.

03:04:04.660 --> 03:04:13.380
 >> That's why they pay us the big bucks here, Rhett.

03:04:13.380 --> 03:04:15.340
 >> That's good.

03:04:15.340 --> 03:04:22.040
 You know, okay, so the answer was found on page 243.

03:04:22.040 --> 03:04:33.900
 I had a problem with this question because it said, let's see, the question is which

03:04:33.900 --> 03:04:35.780
 of the following statements is true?

03:04:35.780 --> 03:04:42.180
 Now, we're supposed to choose the best answer for this particular question, and the only

03:04:42.180 --> 03:04:46.060
 thing that are constant in this question is venting for life or venting for fire, and

03:04:46.060 --> 03:04:47.140
 they're in quotations.

03:04:47.140 --> 03:04:51.660
 So my challenge to this question is what are we placing emphasis on?

03:04:51.660 --> 03:04:57.020
 Are we placing emphasis on the fire or the life?

03:04:57.020 --> 03:05:03.540
 And I understand you're supposed to choose the most correct answer, but I'm going to

03:05:03.540 --> 03:05:08.940
 challenge the concept because this is a concept book.

03:05:08.940 --> 03:05:16.460
 Now, I'm very much aware that my colleagues are going to say that this is a direct sentence,

03:05:16.460 --> 03:05:19.980
 word for word, out of the book, okay?

03:05:19.980 --> 03:05:24.840
 However, when you first start that paragraph, when distinguishing between venting for life

03:05:24.840 --> 03:05:30.780
 and venting for fire, the key factor is timing of the ventilation, and I put emphasis on

03:05:30.780 --> 03:05:39.220
 that because this is, I feel like should be a SOP question and not a textbook-driven question

03:05:39.220 --> 03:05:45.780
 because now we're having a test question that is based off of operational standard of our

03:05:45.780 --> 03:05:47.620
 department.

03:05:47.620 --> 03:05:59.900
 The author of this book clearly states repetitively on pages 241, 247, 171, life is the main,

03:05:59.900 --> 03:06:08.820
 life is the main priority when we're sizing up a structure to determine our goal, our

03:06:08.820 --> 03:06:09.820
 outcome.

03:06:09.820 --> 03:06:19.620
 Now, he specifically says in numerous pages that you should locate, confine, and extinguish.

03:06:19.620 --> 03:06:24.180
 Ventilation is never part of this, but what he does say is that ventilation, if drawn

03:06:24.180 --> 03:06:30.300
 into the wrong hands, can injure or kill someone if you're in the middle of the direct flow

03:06:30.300 --> 03:06:34.100
 path of the fire and the opening.

03:06:34.100 --> 03:06:43.140
 So I would urge the department on this to really consider what message they're sending

03:06:43.140 --> 03:06:51.500
 to the candidate because the first thing we're trained not to do is to just go up and ventilate.

03:06:51.500 --> 03:06:57.540
 Our first priority, which the author says, is to locate the victim.

03:06:57.540 --> 03:07:13.260
 And I particularly did not like this question, but that's just my opinion.

03:07:13.260 --> 03:07:15.540
 Okay.

03:07:15.540 --> 03:07:23.180
 Mr. Punches adds to that, "Venting is a task that is priority on any fire.

03:07:23.180 --> 03:07:28.900
 If venting is achieved in a proper fashion, then both fire and life will benefit from

03:07:28.900 --> 03:07:31.620
 the task.

03:07:31.620 --> 03:07:34.980
 Venting is done no matter if it's fire or life."

03:07:34.980 --> 03:07:36.860
 Bad question, bad answers.

03:07:36.860 --> 03:07:45.220
 He said the question's faulty and should be dismissed or should be eliminated just for

03:07:45.220 --> 03:07:47.300
 the record.

03:07:47.300 --> 03:07:54.020
 Mr. Questions of the appellant?

03:07:54.020 --> 03:07:56.980
 I have no questions at this time.

03:07:56.980 --> 03:07:58.980
 Thank you.

03:07:58.980 --> 03:07:59.980
 No questions?

03:07:59.980 --> 03:08:00.980
 Okay.

03:08:00.980 --> 03:08:01.980
 Fire response.

03:08:01.980 --> 03:08:10.740
 We're about to sustain the key.

03:08:10.740 --> 03:08:14.580
 It's a direct quote from the book.

03:08:14.580 --> 03:08:18.980
 First appeal states an opinion does not refer to an actual text from the source material.

03:08:18.980 --> 03:08:22.460
 The second appeal does not really state anything wrong with question or provide an alternate

03:08:22.460 --> 03:08:25.460
 answer based on a text.

03:08:25.460 --> 03:08:30.940
 The key answer is correct.

03:08:30.940 --> 03:08:39.540
 Question for fire?

03:08:39.540 --> 03:08:41.140
 No question of fire at this time.

03:08:41.140 --> 03:08:42.140
 No question.

03:08:42.140 --> 03:08:46.620
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal, appeals?

03:08:46.620 --> 03:08:47.620
 Casey?

03:08:47.620 --> 03:08:48.620
 Yes, sir.

03:08:48.620 --> 03:09:03.400
 The only thing I would say to this is the book says the key factor is the timing of

03:09:03.400 --> 03:09:11.500
 the ventilation, which statement is true, venting for life should be in as soon as possible

03:09:11.500 --> 03:09:13.940
 is the only one that can be true.

03:09:13.940 --> 03:09:18.300
 To say venting for fire is normally not necessary if venting for life has been successfully

03:09:18.300 --> 03:09:26.820
 executed is not necessarily true, venting for life must be completed before or venting

03:09:26.820 --> 03:09:31.300
 for fire must be completed before venting for life can be initiated is not true because

03:09:31.300 --> 03:09:36.380
 the book states venting for life should obviously begin as soon as possible after the life hazard

03:09:36.380 --> 03:09:40.180
 is recognized and also states venting for fire on the other hand is normally delayed

03:09:40.180 --> 03:09:45.220
 until resources are in place to attack and to say venting for life is usually conducted

03:09:45.220 --> 03:09:48.260
 after all other rescue efforts have failed is not true.

03:09:48.260 --> 03:09:52.060
 Again, the book states venting for life should obviously begin as soon as possible after

03:09:52.060 --> 03:09:57.100
 the life hazard has been is recognized.

03:09:57.100 --> 03:09:59.260
 Thank you.

03:09:59.260 --> 03:10:00.940
 Anyone else?

03:10:00.940 --> 03:10:10.580
 All right, commissioners, I would accept a motion.

03:10:10.580 --> 03:10:12.860
 I'll motion to sustain the key.

03:10:12.860 --> 03:10:23.380
 I'll second discussion seeing none.

03:10:23.380 --> 03:10:27.140
 All in favor of sustaining the key on question 75.

03:10:27.140 --> 03:10:31.900
 All say aye.

03:10:31.900 --> 03:10:33.900
 Motion carries.

03:10:33.900 --> 03:10:38.620
 Next, question 81.

03:10:38.620 --> 03:11:07.940
 Sorry, I'm trying to get my paperwork straight here.

03:11:07.940 --> 03:11:12.220
 As the day progresses, the paperwork gets less organized.

03:11:12.220 --> 03:11:29.140
 All right, 75 to how many are there five appeals?

03:11:29.140 --> 03:11:45.100
 I'm missing appeals, hang on.

03:11:45.100 --> 03:11:55.100
 Okay, there we go.

03:11:55.100 --> 03:12:01.940
 Question 81, five appeals.

03:12:01.940 --> 03:12:04.580
 All right.

03:12:04.580 --> 03:12:07.980
 Mr. Antwiler is not here.

03:12:07.980 --> 03:12:21.180
 Mr. Coyle, is that Mr. Glaze, Jason Glaze?

03:12:21.180 --> 03:12:27.220
 Yeah, I'm here, hang on, can you hear me?

03:12:27.220 --> 03:12:28.780
 I can hear you.

03:12:28.780 --> 03:12:30.140
 There we go.

03:12:30.140 --> 03:12:31.860
 There you are.

03:12:31.860 --> 03:12:32.860
 Welcome.

03:12:32.860 --> 03:12:37.100
 Thank you, how are you all doing?

03:12:37.100 --> 03:12:38.100
 Good.

03:12:38.100 --> 03:12:43.340
 Just want to add to my appeal, the opening up section is a subcategory in the overall

03:12:43.340 --> 03:12:50.140
 section and on page 190, it states overall, in a broad sense, may be considered any action

03:12:50.140 --> 03:12:55.260
 taken to expose hidden fire and ensure its extinguishment.

03:12:55.260 --> 03:13:02.820
 And in the next paragraph from where the question's taken, he states it takes a lot of opening

03:13:02.820 --> 03:13:07.380
 up and a good deal of water to make sure that the fire has been completely extinguished.

03:13:07.380 --> 03:13:16.140
 So being in the overall mindset, I pick D because I don't know of any fire that we're

03:13:16.140 --> 03:13:24.980
 not going to open up, and that's all I got.

03:13:24.980 --> 03:13:26.340
 Okay.

03:13:26.340 --> 03:13:30.020
 Thank you, sir.

03:13:30.020 --> 03:13:32.020
 Jason Owen?

03:13:32.020 --> 03:13:35.660
 No, not here.

03:13:35.660 --> 03:13:38.580
 Well, good.

03:13:38.580 --> 03:13:40.060
 Okay.

03:13:40.060 --> 03:13:41.740
 81.

03:13:41.740 --> 03:13:46.780
 All right.

03:13:46.780 --> 03:13:55.900
 Mr. Punches says that another answer, D, also says D, media vicinity of the object includes

03:13:55.900 --> 03:14:04.700
 the walls and floor and ceiling around the object, therefore B and D are correct.

03:14:04.700 --> 03:14:14.540
 Mr. Owen says the question is not fully, I can't read his writing.

03:14:14.540 --> 03:14:37.980
 Phrase open up signifies, okay, to open holes in the, what does it say?

03:14:37.980 --> 03:14:49.100
 In the dry area or the drywall to check for extensions?

03:14:49.100 --> 03:14:55.100
 Mr. Coyle says just after a room is knocked down by the hose stream, the first opening

03:14:55.100 --> 03:15:01.300
 should be made near already existing openings through the plaster board or plaster.

03:15:01.300 --> 03:15:10.060
 Public states that openings, penetrations should be the first to be opened up.

03:15:10.060 --> 03:15:16.780
 Mr. Atwiler says question doesn't give a clear picture of what is going on in the room.

03:15:16.780 --> 03:15:22.220
 If it mentioned if the walls had fire, smoke or other problems, then A should have been

03:15:22.220 --> 03:15:26.100
 the correct answer, but the vague question left it up in the air.

03:15:26.100 --> 03:15:33.580
 We recently went to the mattress fire, was ordered to open the drywall to check for extension.

03:15:33.580 --> 03:15:42.380
 So he said answer A should also be given for credit, as did Mr. Coyle, as did all the other

03:15:42.380 --> 03:15:43.380
 appellants.

03:15:43.380 --> 03:15:51.340
 No, A and D along with B has the correct answer.

03:15:51.340 --> 03:16:07.840
 Questions of the appellant?

03:16:07.840 --> 03:16:13.620
 Seeing none, fire response.

03:16:13.620 --> 03:16:18.100
 We supposed to sustain the key, B is clearly stated in the text and should be the only

03:16:18.100 --> 03:16:24.500
 accepted answer, answer A is not the correct answer because it states all drywall.

03:16:24.500 --> 03:16:28.800
 The text does not state all, it basically said start with the penetrations affected

03:16:28.800 --> 03:16:33.420
 directly by the fire and move away until you reach clear bays.

03:16:33.420 --> 03:16:43.860
 Answer D is also false because it includes the word always, again the text does not state

03:16:43.860 --> 03:16:49.900
 that it needs to always be opened up.

03:16:49.900 --> 03:16:53.420
 Question of fire?

03:16:53.420 --> 03:16:55.660
 No questions at this time.

03:16:55.660 --> 03:16:56.660
 Okay.

03:16:56.660 --> 03:17:09.420
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeals?

03:17:09.420 --> 03:17:21.420
 Seeing no one, Casey, where is Casey?

03:17:21.420 --> 03:17:30.460
 I guess my argument to say is the knockdown fire doesn't say that it's near drywall.

03:17:30.460 --> 03:17:36.820
 It doesn't say that there's floor space involved and those answers state that it must include

03:17:36.820 --> 03:17:40.100
 all drywall penetrations, which isn't always the case.

03:17:40.100 --> 03:17:47.420
 If you have a couch in the center of a room and it's not fully involved, just a part of

03:17:47.420 --> 03:17:53.820
 it was on fire, there wasn't a flash, you're not necessarily going to tear up the rest

03:17:53.820 --> 03:17:58.140
 of the room because it was localized to that one piece.

03:17:58.140 --> 03:18:04.300
 So I understand where the confusion might have come from through some assumption, but

03:18:04.300 --> 03:18:09.060
 I would say that it can be confined to the immediate vicinity of the object and the object

03:18:09.060 --> 03:18:16.060
 itself prevents unnecessary damage and overhaul.

03:18:16.060 --> 03:18:17.060
 Thank you.

03:18:17.060 --> 03:18:18.060
 Anyone else?

03:18:18.060 --> 03:18:19.060
 Cole?

03:18:19.060 --> 03:18:24.500
 Just real quick, I know you're probably ready to be done, just like all of us.

03:18:24.500 --> 03:18:30.540
 Adding to what the department said in regards to question A, if on page 197 it says as long

03:18:30.540 --> 03:18:35.700
 as you keep finding charred wood, keep pulling, so it doesn't necessarily have to be all of

03:18:35.700 --> 03:18:37.620
 the drywall penetrations in the room.

03:18:37.620 --> 03:18:48.020
 It's just whatever you keep finding, you keep going and after that you're done.

03:18:48.020 --> 03:18:49.020
 Anyone else?

03:18:49.020 --> 03:18:56.380
 Commissioners, I would entertain a motion.

03:18:56.380 --> 03:18:59.180
 I would motion to sustain the key.

03:18:59.180 --> 03:19:00.660
 I'll second.

03:19:00.660 --> 03:19:03.860
 Okay, motion second.

03:19:03.860 --> 03:19:06.820
 Any discussion?

03:19:06.820 --> 03:19:12.060
 I think just like what Ms. Hilliard said, the all statement and the all wave statements,

03:19:12.060 --> 03:19:17.540
 I think those kind of through A and B, the way, and then just reading this book, it's

03:19:17.540 --> 03:19:21.740
 kind of scary because I didn't know that fire could stay somewhere and then just part back

03:19:21.740 --> 03:19:22.740
 up later.

03:19:22.740 --> 03:19:26.420
 So now I'm a little scared.

03:19:26.420 --> 03:19:27.420
 Thanks.

03:19:27.420 --> 03:19:29.500
 She's a newbie.

03:19:29.500 --> 03:19:34.900
 Yeah, sometimes reading all this, you kind of go, why am I even alive?

03:19:34.900 --> 03:19:38.620
 It's kind of scary sometimes, isn't it?

03:19:38.620 --> 03:19:42.780
 I'm so glad that you guys are saying, like if there's anything that is not on fire, but

03:19:42.780 --> 03:19:46.420
 it's just charred that you keep going, I mean, I would rather you destroy that than

03:19:46.420 --> 03:19:49.260
 if I were to come back later.

03:19:49.260 --> 03:19:50.260
 Absolutely.

03:19:50.260 --> 03:19:55.700
 All right, any other discussion?

03:19:55.700 --> 03:19:59.140
 All in favor of sustaining the key for 81, say aye.

03:19:59.140 --> 03:20:00.140
 Aye.

03:20:00.140 --> 03:20:01.140
 Aye.

03:20:01.140 --> 03:20:06.260
 All right, motion carries.

03:20:06.260 --> 03:20:14.340
 Question 88, right?

03:20:14.340 --> 03:20:18.020
 And that's Mr. Punches.

03:20:18.020 --> 03:20:23.060
 All right.

03:20:23.060 --> 03:20:29.820
 Motion deals with as soon as the first report is received that a firefighter is down, three

03:20:29.820 --> 03:20:36.740
 things should immediately happen, one of which is, A, the chief of the fire department must

03:20:36.740 --> 03:20:44.620
 be notified, B, all on scene personnel must be removed from the building, C, an ALS ambulance

03:20:44.620 --> 03:20:50.420
 must immediately be called to the scene if not ready on the scene, and D, water being

03:20:50.420 --> 03:20:59.860
 pumped into the building must be immediately stopped.

03:20:59.860 --> 03:21:05.060
 Mr. Punches says there are numerous things that will happen at the report of a firefighter

03:21:05.060 --> 03:21:06.060
 down.

03:21:06.060 --> 03:21:08.740
 I believe other answers are acceptable with this question.

03:21:08.740 --> 03:21:15.340
 The key to answer C is not the best answer because an ALS unit will be on the scene of

03:21:15.340 --> 03:21:22.660
 any working structure fire.

03:21:22.660 --> 03:21:29.420
 I won't open it to questions of the appellant, so fire response.

03:21:29.420 --> 03:21:39.980
 We vote to sustain the key, C is clearly stated in the text, A, B, and D are not, appeal is

03:21:39.980 --> 03:21:47.060
 an opinion and not based on the text.

03:21:47.060 --> 03:21:48.060
 Questions of fire?

03:21:48.060 --> 03:21:53.580
 I have no questions of fire.

03:21:53.580 --> 03:21:54.580
 Okay.

03:21:54.580 --> 03:22:06.100
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

03:22:06.100 --> 03:22:12.660
 Hearing none, commissioners, I would entertain a motion.

03:22:12.660 --> 03:22:20.180
 I motion that we sustain the key.

03:22:20.180 --> 03:22:27.420
 Motion second, discussion?

03:22:27.420 --> 03:22:28.420
 Hearing none.

03:22:28.420 --> 03:22:31.020
 All in favor of sustaining the key, say aye.

03:22:31.020 --> 03:22:32.020
 Aye.

03:22:32.020 --> 03:22:33.020
 Aye.

03:22:33.020 --> 03:22:34.020
 Opposed?

03:22:34.020 --> 03:22:38.300
 Motion passes.

03:22:38.300 --> 03:22:55.100
 91, Chris Phillips, I haven't seen him.

03:22:55.100 --> 03:22:58.700
 Okay.

03:22:58.700 --> 03:23:04.700
 Commission says a building that has masonry exterior walls which support the floors and

03:23:04.700 --> 03:23:11.540
 the roof structure along with the interior structural and nonstructural members all constructed

03:23:11.540 --> 03:23:26.340
 of wood would be considered and the answers are type two, type four, type one, type three.

03:23:26.340 --> 03:23:37.820
 The key answer is D, type three, construction.

03:23:37.820 --> 03:23:42.140
 And the appeal says questions should be eliminated.

03:23:42.140 --> 03:23:50.220
 The question is misworded.

03:23:50.220 --> 03:23:55.340
 Fire response or fire decision?

03:23:55.340 --> 03:23:56.340
 Sustain the key.

03:23:56.340 --> 03:24:06.220
 Answer clearly stated in the text cannot be A or B since it has noncombustible members.

03:24:06.220 --> 03:24:14.220
 Answer D is also false because the question does not mention heavy timber.

03:24:14.220 --> 03:24:17.580
 Questions of fire?

03:24:17.580 --> 03:24:22.300
 Anyone like to speak in opposition to the appeal?

03:24:22.300 --> 03:24:26.860
 Commissioners, I would entertain a motion.

03:24:26.860 --> 03:24:27.860
 Question for 91.

03:24:27.860 --> 03:24:37.060
 I'll motion that we sustain the key on question 91.

03:24:37.060 --> 03:24:39.300
 I'll second that motion.

03:24:39.300 --> 03:24:40.300
 Okay.

03:24:40.300 --> 03:24:44.420
 Motion moved and seconded.

03:24:44.420 --> 03:24:47.180
 Discussion?

03:24:47.180 --> 03:24:48.180
 Seeing none.

03:24:48.180 --> 03:24:49.460
 Hearing none.

03:24:49.460 --> 03:24:54.380
 All in favor of sustaining the key of 91, say aye.

03:24:54.380 --> 03:24:56.060
 Aye.

03:24:56.060 --> 03:24:58.860
 Okay.

03:24:58.860 --> 03:25:02.980
 Question 92.

03:25:02.980 --> 03:25:25.900
 Museums, courtrooms, restaurants and conference rooms are all examples of A, business occupancies,

03:25:25.900 --> 03:25:35.620
 B, assembly occupancies, C, mercantile occupancies, D, educational occupancies.

03:25:35.620 --> 03:25:41.620
 The keyed answer is B, assembly occupancies.

03:25:41.620 --> 03:25:50.900
 Mr. Coyle says another answer A is correct in addition to the keyed answer.

03:25:50.900 --> 03:25:53.900
 Both answers should be considered.

03:25:53.900 --> 03:25:59.520
 According to the text, the determining factor to classify an occupancy as either business

03:25:59.520 --> 03:26:04.020
 or assembly is the number of occupants.

03:26:04.020 --> 03:26:05.980
 More or less than 50.

03:26:05.980 --> 03:26:08.860
 The question does not provide this information.

03:26:08.860 --> 03:26:15.620
 Therefore, both business and assembly could be the appropriate classification.

03:26:15.620 --> 03:26:27.020
 Page 48 lists examples of business occupancies and includes courthouses.

03:26:27.020 --> 03:26:35.020
 Fire response.

03:26:35.020 --> 03:26:36.380
 Let's sustain the key.

03:26:36.380 --> 03:26:38.660
 Answer B is clear as stated in the text.

03:26:38.660 --> 03:26:42.580
 Under this example, the text is stating that assembly occupancies utilize rooms and buildings

03:26:42.580 --> 03:26:47.820
 primarily for gatherings of 50 or more for specific reasons like deliberations, worship,

03:26:47.820 --> 03:26:53.100
 entertainment, eating, et cetera, and a single room or multiple rooms with occupancies 50

03:26:53.100 --> 03:26:54.940
 and over each.

03:26:54.940 --> 03:26:59.940
 In contrast, business occupancies are buildings or areas that are used primarily for transaction

03:26:59.940 --> 03:27:02.260
 of business other than mercantile.

03:27:02.260 --> 03:27:17.260
 House rooms, museums, et cetera, are not primarily used for transaction of business.

03:27:17.260 --> 03:27:31.460
 I'm looking for his comment about courthouses being business occupancies.

03:27:31.460 --> 03:27:37.540
 He says on page 48.

03:27:37.540 --> 03:27:40.540
 Go ahead.

03:27:40.540 --> 03:27:51.700
 I was just going to say the same thing.

03:27:51.700 --> 03:27:53.300
 It says it on page 48.

03:27:53.300 --> 03:27:54.300
 Okay.

03:27:54.300 --> 03:27:55.300
 Questions of fire.

03:27:55.300 --> 03:28:20.780
 I guess because it does say on page 48, why would we not consider looking at both of those?

03:28:20.780 --> 03:28:26.500
 Community occupancies is the best answer that includes all of the examples.

03:28:26.500 --> 03:28:31.780
 A small city might have a courthouse that only lets 20 people in, but a larger city

03:28:31.780 --> 03:28:39.620
 like Denton County courthouse, a much larger assembly area.

03:28:39.620 --> 03:28:41.300
 I'm sorry.

03:28:41.300 --> 03:28:47.540
 The context of the question to include all examples would be.

03:28:47.540 --> 03:28:54.020
 The question says courtrooms, not courthouses.

03:28:54.020 --> 03:29:02.120
 So a courthouse would contain numerous courtrooms.

03:29:02.120 --> 03:29:08.020
 So as long as it says courtrooms, it would be in the assembly occupancy.

03:29:08.020 --> 03:29:09.500
 Correct?

03:29:09.500 --> 03:29:24.860
 It also says government offices, is that not the same as a court room?

03:29:24.860 --> 03:29:31.340
 But each individual office, well, museums, courtrooms, restaurants, and conference rooms

03:29:31.340 --> 03:29:36.300
 are examples of.

03:29:36.300 --> 03:29:40.860
 That's the question.

03:29:40.860 --> 03:29:47.980
 Casey, did you have something?

03:29:47.980 --> 03:29:53.980
 Yes, I was going to point out what you did about there being a difference in courtrooms

03:29:53.980 --> 03:29:55.700
 and courthouses.

03:29:55.700 --> 03:30:01.020
 And maybe to help a little bit on page 52, it talks about mixed occupancy.

03:30:01.020 --> 03:30:04.920
 It's a multiple occupancy where the occupancies are intermingled.

03:30:04.920 --> 03:30:08.320
 Each portion of the building is classified according to its use.

03:30:08.320 --> 03:30:11.060
 So maybe that's where some of the confusion comes in.

03:30:11.060 --> 03:30:19.740
 But it does specify museums, courtrooms, restaurants, and conference rooms as assembly, and then

03:30:19.740 --> 03:30:25.580
 the government city, musel buildings, and courthouses as business.

03:30:25.580 --> 03:30:33.380
 So it differs it in the book.

03:30:33.380 --> 03:30:42.180
 Okay, I'm here, I was just going to Casey pretty much said what I was going to say.

03:30:42.180 --> 03:30:48.660
 I mean, nowhere in the book else does it say talking about those what one, two, three,

03:30:48.660 --> 03:30:55.180
 those four areas referring to anything other than assembly occupancies.

03:30:55.180 --> 03:31:03.700
 So okay, anyone else?

03:31:03.700 --> 03:31:09.380
 I would entertain a motion commissioners.

03:31:09.380 --> 03:31:15.820
 I make a motion that we sustain the key on question 92.

03:31:15.820 --> 03:31:26.020
 I'll second it then we can make the decision.

03:31:26.020 --> 03:31:27.620
 Now it's in play.

03:31:27.620 --> 03:31:28.620
 Discussion?

03:31:28.620 --> 03:31:38.020
 No, I'm satisfied with what Casey said about the multiple occupancies within the same building.

03:31:38.020 --> 03:31:44.020
 I'm fine with that.

03:31:44.020 --> 03:31:48.340
 Any other discussion?

03:31:48.340 --> 03:31:52.740
 All in favor of sustain the key for question 92?

03:31:52.740 --> 03:31:53.740
 Say aye.

03:31:53.740 --> 03:31:54.740
 Aye.

03:31:54.740 --> 03:31:55.740
 Aye.

03:31:55.740 --> 03:31:56.740
 Unopposed?

03:31:56.740 --> 03:32:00.820
 Okay, motion carries.

03:32:00.820 --> 03:32:09.500
 Well, gentlemen, Mr. Baines stole my thunder at the beginning of the meeting, but you probably

03:32:09.500 --> 03:32:16.940
 have forgotten that since, if I say gentlemen, I'm sorry, Casey, folks, you've probably forgotten

03:32:16.940 --> 03:32:17.940
 it by now.

03:32:17.940 --> 03:32:19.620
 We've all slept since then.

03:32:19.620 --> 03:32:23.460
 Oh, I'm kidding.

03:32:23.460 --> 03:32:27.660
 I say this every time and I know you probably get tired of it and it's like, okay, I know

03:32:27.660 --> 03:32:38.300
 it's coming, but truly, you guys, especially now, but always have done things that none

03:32:38.300 --> 03:32:49.460
 of us want to do and you have spent literally hundreds of hours trying to be better in helping

03:32:49.460 --> 03:32:55.660
 this community and saving our lives and in saving our property.

03:32:55.660 --> 03:33:02.260
 And we as a community probably don't say thank you nearly enough that you would take the

03:33:02.260 --> 03:33:06.300
 time to read all of these books and try to memorize them.

03:33:06.300 --> 03:33:13.260
 And maybe you didn't get all of your appeals done today, but you're already two steps ahead

03:33:13.260 --> 03:33:20.740
 because you've begun the process of being better and being a better fireman or firewoman

03:33:20.740 --> 03:33:23.620
 and that is what really matters.

03:33:23.620 --> 03:33:28.660
 And I just want to salute you and thank you for all you do for us when you run toward

03:33:28.660 --> 03:33:31.100
 things that we're all running away from.

03:33:31.100 --> 03:33:32.420
 And I mean that sincerely.

03:33:32.420 --> 03:33:35.540
 I say it every time, but I still mean it.

03:33:35.540 --> 03:33:38.540
 Thank you so much for all you do.

03:33:38.540 --> 03:33:39.540
 Thank you.

03:33:39.540 --> 03:33:40.540
 All right.

03:33:40.540 --> 03:33:45.660
 Thank you all for everything, you know, sitting through this.

03:33:45.660 --> 03:33:50.700
 This is my first time, so I appreciate y'all and it's been a great experience.

03:33:50.700 --> 03:33:58.060
 It's been, I'm glad it's over, so I'll have y'all stay safe out there and everybody, everybody

03:33:58.060 --> 03:34:01.620
 learns by doing this.

03:34:01.620 --> 03:34:06.120
 All colleagues in the fire department, I'm glad this is over and I'm happy for everybody.

03:34:06.120 --> 03:34:07.940
 So thank y'all.

03:34:07.940 --> 03:34:09.580
 You all stay safe.

03:34:09.580 --> 03:34:10.580
 Be careful.

03:34:10.580 --> 03:34:11.580
 Okay.

03:34:11.580 --> 03:34:12.580
 Thank you guys so much.

03:34:12.580 --> 03:34:13.100
 Thank you.

03:34:31.620 --> 03:35:00.100
 a minute. I'm going to read yours.

03:35:00.100 --> 03:35:20.780
 Yes, sustain key, 11 sustain, 15 sustain, 17 sustain, sustain 20, withdrew the appeal,

03:35:20.780 --> 03:35:37.740
 sustain the key of 32, sustain the key of 34, sustain, 42 sustain, 44 sustain, 47 A

03:35:37.740 --> 03:36:02.580
 and B, 53 except A and B, sustain 54, sustain 70, sustain 70, 75, I'm sorry, sustain 81,

03:36:02.580 --> 03:36:11.940
 sustain 88, sustain 91, sustain 92, okay.

03:36:11.940 --> 03:36:15.700
 That way we know that we're all on the same page.

03:36:15.700 --> 03:36:22.180
 Commissioners, did you hear anything different from that?

03:36:22.180 --> 03:36:30.620
 Last item, last item on the agenda is to date for the next civil service commission meeting.

03:36:30.620 --> 03:36:40.220
 Well, we have what, captain and bat chief appeals coming up.

03:36:40.220 --> 03:36:43.380
 How many of those do we have?

03:36:43.380 --> 03:36:47.980
 25 appeals for those two.

03:36:47.980 --> 03:36:48.980
 Wow.

03:36:48.980 --> 03:36:49.980
 Okay, combined.

03:36:49.980 --> 03:36:50.980
 All right.

03:36:50.980 --> 03:36:54.540
 So we have 25 appeals.

03:36:54.540 --> 03:37:00.540
 So what kind of what I'm going to ask this way and then what kind of pressure are we

03:37:00.540 --> 03:37:01.540
 under?

03:37:01.540 --> 03:37:06.020
 Do we have some holes that we need to fill?

03:37:06.020 --> 03:37:07.020
 Okay.

03:37:07.020 --> 03:37:08.020
 Okay.

03:37:08.020 --> 03:37:12.580
 I don't know if you heard him or not.

03:37:12.580 --> 03:37:19.420
 June 19th, there will be vacancies in the captain battalion chief ranks.

03:37:19.420 --> 03:37:25.060
 Therefore, we probably need to have a meeting.

03:37:25.060 --> 03:37:31.420
 Oh, yeah, you.

03:37:31.420 --> 03:37:38.100
 That's Mr. Chair, let me ask a question.

03:37:38.100 --> 03:37:39.100
 Okay.

03:37:39.100 --> 03:37:42.100
 Hang on.

03:37:42.100 --> 03:37:43.420
 It impacts the date.

03:37:43.420 --> 03:37:44.420
 Hang on, John.

03:37:44.420 --> 03:37:50.180
 Hi, everybody.

03:37:50.180 --> 03:37:53.940
 I was trying to stay off with you.

03:37:53.940 --> 03:37:59.620
 So we have we need to have two meetings because we need to hear the appeals and we also need

03:37:59.620 --> 03:38:01.700
 to certify the list.

03:38:01.700 --> 03:38:02.780
 We're limited on our days.

03:38:02.780 --> 03:38:06.220
 We can do that because we need to have it done by June 19th.

03:38:06.220 --> 03:38:15.620
 So the only two days that this room is available is June 10th and June 15th.

03:38:15.620 --> 03:38:19.100
 So that solves the problem, right?

03:38:19.100 --> 03:38:24.180
 If y'all are all three available, yes, it does.

03:38:24.180 --> 03:38:32.420
 Was everybody available on the 10th and 15th, but especially, I mean, we could do a zoom

03:38:32.420 --> 03:38:34.020
 if we had to, couldn't we?

03:38:34.020 --> 03:38:38.420
 No, it has to be public.

03:38:38.420 --> 03:38:43.580
 Yeah, but I mean, we could do just the three of us zoom.

03:38:43.580 --> 03:38:50.940
 We wouldn't have to do must see TV, right?

03:38:50.940 --> 03:39:00.540
 Okay, because it's a public meeting, we have to do the zoom.

03:39:00.540 --> 03:39:03.220
 We have to do the TV and everything.

03:39:03.220 --> 03:39:05.660
 So all right.

03:39:05.660 --> 03:39:10.940
 What's your availability on the 10th and the 15th?

03:39:10.940 --> 03:39:22.700
 Let me get my calendar and make sure all of this is like 25 appeals means we're probably

03:39:22.700 --> 03:39:33.820
 need two hours to an hour and a half hours.

03:39:33.820 --> 03:39:35.900
 They know better.

03:39:35.900 --> 03:39:36.900
 Three hours.

03:39:36.900 --> 03:39:38.900
 All right.

03:39:38.900 --> 03:39:52.900
 So we need three hours.

03:39:52.900 --> 03:39:59.000
 Okay, maybe we can do that the day we approve the list.

03:39:59.000 --> 03:40:04.900
 If we made on the 10th for the appeals, 15th, we approve the list when we have some, when

03:40:04.900 --> 03:40:15.540
 we have time to do that discussion.

03:40:15.540 --> 03:40:18.260
 Okay.

03:40:18.260 --> 03:40:24.660
 She's talking about another meeting in July also, and that's, I mean, that's okay.

03:40:24.660 --> 03:40:28.540
 At present, I have no commitments on either day.

03:40:28.540 --> 03:40:35.380
 The only question I have is let's try to get an idea of what kind of time commitment we're

03:40:35.380 --> 03:40:42.340
 looking at so I can kind of preempt any future attempts to take my time away from civil service

03:40:42.340 --> 03:40:45.300
 commission.

03:40:45.300 --> 03:40:51.780
 We're looking probably at three hours on the 10th for the appeals.

03:40:51.780 --> 03:40:56.420
 All the appeals would be on the 10th and then the certification would be on the 15th.

03:40:56.420 --> 03:40:58.920
 It has to be on the 15th.

03:40:58.920 --> 03:41:12.460
 We will also, I assume we'll approve the certification list of today's meeting of the 10th and then

03:41:12.460 --> 03:41:18.820
 the 15th will just be for the battalion chief and the captains.

03:41:18.820 --> 03:41:21.900
 So we need, let's say three hours.

03:41:21.900 --> 03:41:24.060
 On the 10th or on the 15th?

03:41:24.060 --> 03:41:33.060
 Okay, three hours, okay, okay.

03:41:33.060 --> 03:41:35.740
 Any particular hour?

03:41:35.740 --> 03:41:41.820
 Strike your fancy, let's do it in the afternoon.

03:41:41.820 --> 03:41:44.260
 Yes, ma'am.

03:41:44.260 --> 03:41:47.660
 Are you asking permission or just exercising?

03:41:47.660 --> 03:41:51.780
 Oh no, I was counting the hours.

03:41:51.780 --> 03:41:59.140
 If we started at nine, would you like afternoon better?

03:41:59.140 --> 03:42:00.140
 We could do nine.

03:42:00.140 --> 03:42:01.140
 We can knock it out.

03:42:01.140 --> 03:42:02.140
 How about you?

03:42:02.140 --> 03:42:04.340
 Nine's fine with me.

03:42:04.340 --> 03:42:05.340
 Okay.

03:42:05.340 --> 03:42:13.180
 So let's say nine to noon on the 10th of June.

03:42:13.180 --> 03:42:15.820
 Okay.

03:42:15.820 --> 03:42:21.220
 Then the 15th, we will decide on the time or do we need to set a time so you can reserve

03:42:21.220 --> 03:42:22.840
 the room?

03:42:22.840 --> 03:42:27.700
 I'm asking my room observers.

03:42:27.700 --> 03:42:31.860
 Can we go ahead and set a time on the 15th then?

03:42:31.860 --> 03:42:37.380
 That one would probably be a relatively short meeting, I'm thinking.

03:42:37.380 --> 03:42:46.780
 So maybe let's say an hour just to, we probably will need five minutes, but you never know.

03:42:46.780 --> 03:42:51.740
 That's a Monday, so let's do 10.

03:42:51.740 --> 03:43:01.180
 Mondays are a little hard for me, so I could probably do a little later if you don't mind.

03:43:01.180 --> 03:43:02.860
 How much is, like an hour later?

03:43:02.860 --> 03:43:03.860
 Would 11 work?

03:43:03.860 --> 03:43:11.460
 Yeah, 11 would give me a chance to deal with all the fires that we have to deal with on

03:43:11.460 --> 03:43:12.460
 Monday mornings.

03:43:12.460 --> 03:43:13.460
 Bad, bad.

03:43:13.460 --> 03:43:14.460
 How about 11?

03:43:14.460 --> 03:43:18.500
 Lillian, does that work for you?

03:43:18.500 --> 03:43:20.780
 Yeah, that's fine.

03:43:20.780 --> 03:43:22.120
 All right.

03:43:22.120 --> 03:43:28.220
 So we're doing nine o'clock on the 10th and 11 o'clock on the 15th.

03:43:28.220 --> 03:43:30.740
 That way they can get the room reserved.

03:43:30.740 --> 03:43:34.140
 All right.

03:43:34.140 --> 03:43:40.260
 Yes, ma'am.

03:43:40.260 --> 03:43:55.860
 Okay, Stephanie's asking about the July date for the civil service rules discussion.

03:43:55.860 --> 03:43:57.860
 So back to the calendars.

03:43:57.860 --> 03:44:00.260
 Well, do we need to check?

03:44:00.260 --> 03:44:04.740
 We probably need to check availability of this room or in room like it.

03:44:04.740 --> 03:44:07.420
 Is that true?

03:44:07.420 --> 03:44:17.540
 No, when you say the rules, is that what we're alluding to today as far as kind of maybe

03:44:17.540 --> 03:44:21.060
 some revising of how we approach things?

03:44:21.060 --> 03:44:24.620
 Stephanie, they can't hear you.

03:44:24.620 --> 03:44:39.020
 You're on mute.

03:44:39.020 --> 03:44:47.860
 Okay.

03:44:47.860 --> 03:44:48.860
 What she just said.

03:44:48.860 --> 03:44:54.940
 We're going to cut the feed.