1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:14,960
 Morning. Like to call the June 15th meeting of the Civil Service Commission to order at

2
00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:27,560
 1103. First order is the introduction of guests. Why don't we go around the room really quickly

3
00:00:27,560 --> 00:00:34,960
 and just simply say who we are and what we do. So, my name is Darrell Ramsey. I'm the

4
00:00:34,960 --> 00:00:46,760
 chair of the Civil Service Commission. Colin. I'm the training chief for the Dinford Department.

5
00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:54,280
 Okay. Michael Kronig. Yes, sir. Michael Kronig, deputy city attorney. And I started working

6
00:00:54,280 --> 00:01:00,120
 for the city April of this year for the 20 years prior to that, I was an assistant city

7
00:01:00,120 --> 00:01:04,700
 attorney with the city of Austin Law Department and handled all their police and fire civil

8
00:01:04,700 --> 00:01:19,640
 service matters. Crystal. I'm Crystal. I'm the civil service secretary. John. Hi, I'm

9
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:25,840
 John Baines. I'm a local businessman and a volunteer on the Civil Service Commission.

10
00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:36,600
 Lillian. I'm Lillian Prado Carrillo and I'm a commissioner. Stephanie. Hi, Stephanie Lang.

11
00:01:36,600 --> 00:01:46,440
 I'm the civil service director. Kenneth. Kenneth Hedges. I'm fire chief with the Dinford Department.

12
00:01:46,440 --> 00:01:53,560
 Let's say Jason. Good morning. Jason Ballard, president of the Denton Fire and Fire Association.

13
00:01:53,560 --> 00:02:01,560
 Okay. Tiffany Thompson. Hey, good morning, Tiffany. HR director with the city. Okay.

14
00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:10,600
 And Chief Dixon. Good morning, everybody. Frank Dixon, chief of police for the city

15
00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:16,400
 of Denton Police Department. Okay. Thank you all. Now we have all the guests and all the

16
00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:23,680
 stars and everything. Next order of business is to receive public comments, and I'm gonna

17
00:02:23,680 --> 00:02:36,760
 simply read this. Civil Service Commission members did get one. We did receive one comment

18
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:50,480
 on a virtual white card. The commissioners have received it, and we don't read it. We

19
00:02:50,480 --> 00:02:59,160
 don't comment on it. We simply take it into account as we move forward. So that's probably

20
00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:13,880
 hopefully that's legally correct. So next order of business is to prove eligibility

21
00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:29,960
 list for fire battalion chief and captain. So hang on a second. Where's my captain? There

22
00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:42,600
 it is. So fire captain. Commissioners, you have the list in front of you. I will defer

23
00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:53,360
 to fire to make any comments that they might want to make about the list. No comments.

24
00:03:53,360 --> 00:04:05,040
 Okay. Entertain a motion that we approve the captain's promotional list as calculated.

25
00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:16,440
 I move that we approve the list as presented. All right. Any discussion? I did have a question.

26
00:04:16,440 --> 00:04:23,220
 The scores that are listed here are prior to the appeals. Is that not correct? Or is

27
00:04:23,220 --> 00:04:30,720
 this after the appeals adjustments have been made? They're after. I thought they were after.

28
00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:42,080
 Okay. Okay. Thank you. There are no other comments. I would all in favor of the motion

29
00:04:42,080 --> 00:04:54,600
 to accept the captain's promotional list or say aye. Aye. Opposed? And next is the battalion

30
00:04:54,600 --> 00:05:04,280
 chief list. Again, fire. Are there any questions? Any comments? No comments. Okay. Commissioners,

31
00:05:04,280 --> 00:05:11,320
 I would entertain a motion. I'll motion that we accept the list for the two promotional

32
00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:20,200
 tests. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Now, is there any discussion? Any

33
00:05:20,200 --> 00:05:27,760
 questions of fire? I don't know if this is, go ahead, Dr. Baines. No, go ahead, please.

34
00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:32,760
 I was just wondering, is this, I should have asked this before, but are these the only

35
00:05:32,760 --> 00:05:38,920
 things taken into consideration whenever you're going to promote the next person up? Yes ma'am.

36
00:05:38,920 --> 00:05:42,760
 So there's not like an interview. There's not anything else. It's just strictly on.

37
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:45,960
 So like in the case of the first list, when they were tied all the same score, how do

38
00:05:45,960 --> 00:05:52,960
 you determine that? By the date that they were promoted on their current rank. So those

39
00:05:52,960 --> 00:05:58,480
 were the drivers taking captain's test. Whoever's the most senior driver in a tiebreaker, that's

40
00:05:58,480 --> 00:06:05,440
 the first tiebreaker. Or actually the first tiebreaker is the raw score. Right. So raw

41
00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:12,080
 score is the first tiebreaker and then it's the time in rank. That's different than your

42
00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:18,360
 seniority points. Yes. The seniority points is maxed out at 10 points. So you might've

43
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:22,880
 been a driver for 12. You might, you might've been with the department for 17 years, but

44
00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:27,960
 you're only ever going to get 10 seniority points. Oh, I see. Wow. So it's strictly based

45
00:06:27,960 --> 00:06:35,560
 just on the, basically on the exam. Yes ma'am. Okay. And that's, that's, is that part of,

46
00:06:35,560 --> 00:06:41,640
 or that was decided with like your, what we're going to discuss later on, the regulations

47
00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:57,400
 or that? Yes. Okay. I was just wondering how that worked. All right. Any other questions?

48
00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:05,720
 The nomenclature, the description on the, it's different. On the captains it says post appeals,

49
00:07:05,720 --> 00:07:10,360
 March 4th. And then the other one, it says final scores. I think just for the sake of

50
00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:26,760
 less confusion, they should be the same. We'll make sure we do that for the next time. Okay.

51
00:07:26,760 --> 00:07:32,840
 I don't think that probably needs another motion, does it? We, it was just discussion.

52
00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:37,000
 We were just discussing, so I just brought that up. Well, I know, but if we change anything,

53
00:07:37,000 --> 00:07:40,760
 we're probably going to change the five, the captain. So do we need a motion to change

54
00:07:40,760 --> 00:07:48,040
 that on the captain's list? Or change. I just was making you aware that eventually it does

55
00:07:48,040 --> 00:07:54,120
 need to be addressed to make sure there's no confusion henceforth. Can we make that

56
00:07:54,120 --> 00:08:02,160
 change at house? And if you want to, it's not a difference. It's just changing the language.

57
00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:15,480
 Right. Right. And that's fine with you. Okay. Do we, do we vote on that? All in favor say

58
00:08:15,480 --> 00:08:24,320
 aye of, of, of accepting the battalion chief list, say aye. Aye. Okay. Opposed? There's

59
00:08:24,320 --> 00:08:33,200
 three, zero. Next order of business is to take action on the position of opportunity

60
00:08:33,200 --> 00:08:50,600
 announcement that you have in your packet or a September five test for police. I will

61
00:08:50,600 --> 00:09:04,680
 ask police if they have any comments. We do not. Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a

62
00:09:04,680 --> 00:09:11,920
 motion on the, can I ask a question? Isn't this, this is relevant to what the white card

63
00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:19,480
 was. So do we not need to discuss the white card before we discuss or at least acknowledge

64
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:29,200
 that that was what this is pertaining to? Stephanie? Normally in regards to any comments

65
00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:35,560
 made according to the meeting notice, we do not discuss the comments at all. Of course

66
00:09:35,560 --> 00:09:42,280
 you get a copy of it, but it's not for discussion. And what, then what would be the point of

67
00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:47,120
 them submitting the comment? I mean, the, it has to do with the police and the new recruits

68
00:09:47,120 --> 00:09:54,320
 and all of that. And so. Well, it's for consideration and Michael can correct me if I'm wrong, but

69
00:09:54,320 --> 00:10:01,160
 I believe in order for you to go into discussion about a comment overall, it has to be on the

70
00:10:01,160 --> 00:10:06,320
 agenda for the, for a future discussion. If you want to put it on the agenda for later

71
00:10:06,320 --> 00:10:11,200
 discussion. We would have to, we would have to put it on the, on the agenda for our next

72
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:19,320
 meeting to actually discuss it. What is the proper notification? I mean, is the, what's

73
00:10:19,320 --> 00:10:27,160
 on the white card relevant to what's posted? The white card is asking us to, to not, to

74
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:32,760
 not accept any further recruits until the newly appointed ad hoc committee has had time

75
00:10:32,760 --> 00:10:39,640
 to discuss or investigate or suggest any new information pertaining to the police department.

76
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:45,200
 So my understanding is that if we're talking about police, police recruiting an exam and

77
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:51,280
 all of these things, I mean, that seems like. Yeah. I tend to agree with, yeah. I mean,

78
00:10:51,280 --> 00:10:55,800
 I tend to agree with you. Ultimately it's up to the commission, but if, if it's relevant

79
00:10:55,800 --> 00:11:00,720
 to what's the posted language is, I don't think it would be an appropriate, I'm not

80
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:08,260
 sure what your rules are. If you just read it into the record, I'm not sure typically

81
00:11:08,260 --> 00:11:13,440
 what you do with those white cards. I'm not used to that process. I know this is a new

82
00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:19,200
 process for, for all of us, but it seems like it would be appropriate if it's related to

83
00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:26,560
 this item that it certainly could be read into the record and discussed. Ultimately,

84
00:11:26,560 --> 00:11:34,360
 it's up to the commission to decide that. Yeah. I think, I think the comment was just

85
00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:40,120
 a little bit different in terms of what's on the agenda for the announcement. The announcement

86
00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:48,520
 is, is to approve just the announcement of the test. The commenter, they were basically

87
00:11:48,520 --> 00:11:56,400
 stating that the police department should not move forth with recruiting or hiring any

88
00:11:56,400 --> 00:12:04,280
 new recruits for the police department. So the subject matters are a little bit different.

89
00:12:04,280 --> 00:12:13,960
 So it's okay to post a police recruit examination, potentially we're not going to hire any new

90
00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:23,600
 recruits. Set the exam forth. That's fine. Whether we stop, whether we post it and there's

91
00:12:23,600 --> 00:12:28,720
 just no jobs offered if we decide to go that way or however all of that works, I'm not

92
00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:33,000
 sure who, what body. I just feel like it's important for us if we have finally did receive

93
00:12:33,000 --> 00:12:36,440
 a white card and someone's giving a comment, I think we need to acknowledge that. Especially

94
00:12:36,440 --> 00:12:42,440
 it has to do with, with new recruits and the new exam is leading up to new recruits.

95
00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:50,600
 I defer to the commissioners. Yeah, me too. I think it's up to you if you think it's relevant

96
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:56,360
 by all means. I, I don't think it's inappropriate to just read it and discuss it if you want

97
00:12:56,360 --> 00:13:01,680
 to. I think it'd be important to read it even if we make a motion and we decide ultimately

98
00:13:01,680 --> 00:13:06,800
 to go ahead and post the notice of the civil service exam. I think we need to read it to

99
00:13:06,800 --> 00:13:11,640
 acknowledge it probably does have some hesitation. Even the exam that may be set forth and people

100
00:13:11,640 --> 00:13:16,560
 take the exam, potentially the police department might not have new recruits until all of that

101
00:13:16,560 --> 00:13:23,040
 else gets heard. I'm in favor of discussing the white card and making a decision amongst

102
00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:34,640
 the commissioners and then moving forward. Okay, we can do that. Just a bit of information.

103
00:13:34,640 --> 00:13:45,060
 Any hires that are done before September 5th will come off of last year's anyway. Last

104
00:13:45,060 --> 00:13:58,280
 year's list approved list of recruits until that list is exhausted. And I don't think

105
00:13:58,280 --> 00:14:05,160
 that we're at that point for the so by September 5th, we'll be ready to give give a test. That

106
00:14:05,160 --> 00:14:09,440
 doesn't mean we're gonna hire anybody. It just means we're we're gonna get the test.

107
00:14:09,440 --> 00:14:18,800
 But John, do you want to make that a motion? I motion that we discuss the white card and

108
00:14:18,800 --> 00:14:25,480
 then after such discussion, we move forward according to the dictates of the commissions.

109
00:14:25,480 --> 00:14:35,080
 Okay. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Are we gonna read? Are you gonna read the

110
00:14:35,080 --> 00:14:43,760
 white card or not? If we pass the motion? Gotta do that first. Is there any discussion

111
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:52,320
 on the motion? Motion to read the information from the white card and discuss it. Say aye.

112
00:14:52,320 --> 00:15:04,800
 Aye. Opposed? All right, the information on the white card. New police recruit must new

113
00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:11,760
 police recruit recruitment. I'm sorry, must be reconsidered until full internal investigation

114
00:15:11,760 --> 00:15:19,520
 of Denton PD and a true grasp on how to change a long standing tradition of racial and economic

115
00:15:19,520 --> 00:15:27,480
 abuse by police. The new Denton use of force committee must understand the need for the

116
00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:34,680
 defunding better use can be done with the money for our community and proper training

117
00:15:34,680 --> 00:15:41,480
 of any new recruits before any new recruits can join. I urge you to consider no new police

118
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:53,920
 recruits this year. So discussion. I think you're right. Since you're saying that the

119
00:15:53,920 --> 00:15:59,440
 new recruits would come from last year's or the last list, I understand that. I just felt

120
00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:02,800
 it was important to acknowledge the comments that are made, especially from the public.

121
00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:07,480
 They've taken the time to submit them. If what you're saying, I mean, if there's not

122
00:16:07,480 --> 00:16:15,600
 any kind of, what can I say, like any kind of comment or anything, I mean, if they take

123
00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:20,520
 the civil service exam, there's no kind of guarantee or anything that they're gonna be

124
00:16:20,520 --> 00:16:25,560
 considered for a job up, you know, in the next few months from this list, then I don't

125
00:16:25,560 --> 00:16:32,680
 to them posting this as long as I said, we've acknowledged that and this new ad hoc committee

126
00:16:32,680 --> 00:16:40,520
 along with the police department works out whatever it needs to work out. My input is

127
00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:56,320
 as follows. We're currently, we need to be careful that we have an ample supply of applicants

128
00:16:56,320 --> 00:17:05,280
 to fill vacancies. And until we have an overall strategy or retooling design for the department,

129
00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:12,120
 I think we need to operate as normal until that revised strategy or policy is put in

130
00:17:12,120 --> 00:17:19,640
 place. And I do appreciate the gentleman's input. And I think at the first opportunity,

131
00:17:19,640 --> 00:17:27,160
 this particular comment needs to be considered, you know, along with the other things, the

132
00:17:27,160 --> 00:17:33,440
 use of force and the refund issues, the defunding calls for police departments, all that needs

133
00:17:33,440 --> 00:17:38,720
 to be discussed. But to put everything on hold until we have that discussion, I think

134
00:17:38,720 --> 00:17:46,940
 would be inappropriate. So I think we need to go move forward with the police exam and

135
00:17:46,940 --> 00:17:51,240
 just make sure that we take care of those other matters as well. We've got to find a

136
00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:57,240
 way to take care of those other conversations as well and not just the police recruitment

137
00:17:57,240 --> 00:18:10,080
 issues. Yeah, I agree with you, John. The police list and I'm not sure about the dates,

138
00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:20,680
 the police list lasts for one year. It's a one year list of candidates for recruitment

139
00:18:20,680 --> 00:18:26,720
 to the police department. I don't know when, I don't know where we are on that list as

140
00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:33,000
 far as how close we are to that list being exhausted. But the decisions that are made

141
00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:41,000
 by this committee and other decisions are likely to go beyond our September 5th test

142
00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:47,240
 date, which could run into not having candidates, not having an eligibility list, not having

143
00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:55,440
 a recruitment list available at some point early in the fall or in the fall if we don't

144
00:18:55,440 --> 00:19:04,240
 go forward with this. Because again, the timing and the rules, if you read them, there are

145
00:19:04,240 --> 00:19:10,960
 time limits on the eligibility lists and recruitment lists. So we have to make sure that we don't

146
00:19:10,960 --> 00:19:20,720
 leave completely short. But I agree that the comment was appropriate for our discussion,

147
00:19:20,720 --> 00:19:25,800
 but I would like, I would agree with you, John. If you make that a motion, I will second

148
00:19:25,800 --> 00:19:35,080
 it if that's all right. I'll do my best to be succinct in the motion. My motion is this,

149
00:19:35,080 --> 00:19:42,040
 that the white card consideration be addressed at the earliest opportunity. However, I agree

150
00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:57,280
 that we need to move forward. >> Can I add just a friendly, like what you

151
00:19:57,280 --> 00:20:01,720
 said, that it be considered at the earliest convenience before new hires?

152
00:20:01,720 --> 00:20:13,000
 >> I'm okay with that. >> Just that. Yep. And I'm good.

153
00:20:13,000 --> 00:20:14,000
 >> I'm okay. >> Chief Dixon, where are we? Do you have

154
00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:21,160
 any idea where we are on the current list? >> We are towards the end of exhausting the

155
00:20:21,160 --> 00:20:30,560
 current list and that we would be kind of in a holding pattern until the next test.

156
00:20:30,560 --> 00:20:43,360
 >> Okay. So let's go ahead and vote on this one, Daryl, and then I have another item.

157
00:20:43,360 --> 00:20:54,040
 >> So John, you're seconding or allowing Lillian's friendly amendment. All right. Krista, could

158
00:20:54,040 --> 00:21:00,080
 you read the motion to us, please, ma'am? >> Yes, sir. So Commissioner Baines has motion

159
00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:07,440
 to approve the -- to approve with the white card addressed at the earliest convenience

160
00:21:07,440 --> 00:21:16,080
 before the new hires, but to move forward with the entrance exam posting.

161
00:21:16,080 --> 00:21:33,840
 >> Okay. Is that going to -- will that leave the police in alert at all as far as having

162
00:21:33,840 --> 00:21:38,480
 candidates? >> As I understand it, the Mayor's committee

163
00:21:38,480 --> 00:21:44,040
 is going to be looking at useful force and useful force policies. They are not charged

164
00:21:44,040 --> 00:21:49,600
 with looking at recruitment and training, although when it comes to useful force, there

165
00:21:49,600 --> 00:21:54,480
 will be a component of that. I don't know if the two will overlap or they will be getting

166
00:21:54,480 --> 00:22:06,840
 a report back on the recruitment process. So that would be my only -- my only issue

167
00:22:06,840 --> 00:22:14,200
 with that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We can at the same time be looking at

168
00:22:14,200 --> 00:22:21,040
 a parallel factor in our recruitment while the committee is going on, taking some suggestions

169
00:22:21,040 --> 00:22:24,600
 on our own and doing that, if that's okay with the commission.

170
00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:31,600
 >> And the language of Dr. Baines is saying for it to be addressed. It's not asking anything

171
00:22:31,600 --> 00:22:36,800
 other than the acknowledgement of the card. It's just saying to be addressed. I understand

172
00:22:36,800 --> 00:22:41,500
 that this whole motion wasn't even about hiring. My whole point was to listen to the people

173
00:22:41,500 --> 00:22:47,560
 that are putting forth the comment, moving forward with the test, which is absolutely

174
00:22:47,560 --> 00:22:51,320
 fine, but in the language that he said, it's just so that it can be addressed, so it can

175
00:22:51,320 --> 00:22:54,600
 be discussed, so that the public doesn't think, well, why am I going to submit comments if

176
00:22:54,600 --> 00:23:00,240
 they're not going to listen to them or discuss them or take them into consideration anyway?

177
00:23:00,240 --> 00:23:07,860
 >> Okay. >> This is Michael Croninger. I don't think the commission is saying that the police

178
00:23:07,860 --> 00:23:13,800
 department can't give a new test and can't begin hiring off of that list unless these

179
00:23:13,800 --> 00:23:18,720
 concerns are addressed. I mean, I know you want them to, but you're not putting forth

180
00:23:18,720 --> 00:23:26,800
 a prohibition that the department can't actually start recruiting people off of that list. Am

181
00:23:26,800 --> 00:23:33,400
 I misunderstanding that or? >> Yeah. There's no stoppage. We just need to

182
00:23:33,400 --> 00:23:42,800
 make sure that we take an earnest effort to discuss the man's concerns at our earliest

183
00:23:42,800 --> 00:23:48,400
 opportunity. >> And remember, and we will vote on this,

184
00:23:48,400 --> 00:23:54,320
 and remember also that we approve the recruitment list. The police brings that recruitment list

185
00:23:54,320 --> 00:24:03,600
 to us after the test is completed and graded, so we will see the list before they can begin.

186
00:24:03,600 --> 00:24:10,760
 We approve the list before they can actually begin hiring from it. Until at least our September

187
00:24:10,760 --> 00:24:17,680
 meeting and maybe even our October meeting, depending on when they get it done, so.

188
00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:22,640
 >> And I think the commission, if you're satisfied that those concerns have been addressed, I

189
00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:29,600
 don't think you have to certify that hiring list. I think you probably have the discretion

190
00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:35,880
 to not do it at that time, so I think you certainly do have safeguards in there to ensure

191
00:24:35,880 --> 00:24:44,480
 that these matters have been addressed. >> Okay. All in favor of the motion to approve

192
00:24:44,480 --> 00:24:53,560
 the POA, say aye. >> This is the motion that Dr. Baines made,

193
00:24:53,560 --> 00:24:57,920
 right? >> Yeah. Aren't they one and the same for

194
00:24:57,920 --> 00:25:00,720
 all intent purposes? >> Yeah. There was just different language

195
00:25:00,720 --> 00:25:04,680
 on it that Crystal, I think, or someone read. >> Well, then that's the --

196
00:25:04,680 --> 00:25:09,400
 >> That's this motion. >> They're all one and the same. The language

197
00:25:09,400 --> 00:25:18,800
 has changed, but yes, it is the new motion, but it still approves the proceeding with

198
00:25:18,800 --> 00:25:23,000
 the POA. >> Okay. I agree.

199
00:25:23,000 --> 00:25:26,560
 >> All in favor, say aye. >> Aye.

200
00:25:26,560 --> 00:25:38,320
 >> Opposed? 3-0. Okay. Again, just FYI, we were in live session and this person had come

201
00:25:38,320 --> 00:25:47,520
 in and everyone comes and makes a public comment. It's not on the agenda, and we are -- we do

202
00:25:47,520 --> 00:25:55,840
 not have to nor probably should we discuss any issue that comes as a public comment.

203
00:25:55,840 --> 00:26:02,600
 I mean, the normal procedure is to listen to the public comment, address it at the next

204
00:26:02,600 --> 00:26:09,000
 board meeting with it being on the agenda. So I mean, that's just the general procedure.

205
00:26:09,000 --> 00:26:16,960
 So basically, we have gone away from the general procedure from what we normally do. And that's

206
00:26:16,960 --> 00:26:27,360
 okay. I'm not -- I'm just an FYI that we normally would not discuss a comment, a public comment,

207
00:26:27,360 --> 00:26:36,120
 even if it was in person, them sitting right there. We would not discuss it. Okay.

208
00:26:36,120 --> 00:26:44,280
 Next order of business is the revisions to the local rules and regulations. You all received

209
00:26:44,280 --> 00:27:02,960
 those. So I will defer to staff on this. >> Provided you a document with the highlighted

210
00:27:02,960 --> 00:27:18,760
 changes. And so how I will do this is to start with each rule that was revised. If we need

211
00:27:18,760 --> 00:27:26,520
 to have discussion regarding any rules that were not changed but are in the local rules,

212
00:27:26,520 --> 00:27:31,520
 please let me know. And we can go over those too if we need to, if the commissioners have

213
00:27:31,520 --> 00:27:49,000
 any questions about it. The first rule that was revised was 003. And that will just simply

214
00:27:49,000 --> 00:27:54,680
 include the language that there was a recent meeting confer agreement that was approved

215
00:27:54,680 --> 00:28:03,440
 by city council on September 26th -- well, September 26th of 2006. And it was one subsequently

216
00:28:03,440 --> 00:28:10,120
 approved as well. Which allowed for the appointments to be made by the department head. Did anyone

217
00:28:10,120 --> 00:28:20,640
 have any questions regarding rule number three on appointment? All right. Next one.

218
00:28:20,640 --> 00:28:27,840
 >> Stephanie, 2006 is the correct date. >> Yes.

219
00:28:27,840 --> 00:28:33,560
 >> Okay. >> That's probably the initial --

220
00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:36,760
 >> It should be September 26th. Thank you, commissioner.

221
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:41,560
 >> September 26th, 2006. >> Of 2006. Yeah.

222
00:28:41,560 --> 00:28:44,960
 >> Okay. That's the original one. >> That's the original.

223
00:28:44,960 --> 00:28:49,400
 >> Okay. >> If you go on to eligibility, which is

224
00:28:49,400 --> 00:28:55,480
 under number seven. It's still under rule number three, but it's in parentheses seven

225
00:28:55,480 --> 00:29:00,640
 dealing with the eligibility list. There was a change in that. And I have it highlighted

226
00:29:00,640 --> 00:29:09,440
 on your paper there. And basically, it discusses that when a vacancy occurs at the beginning

227
00:29:09,440 --> 00:29:15,280
 of a position, the department head requests inviting from the director names of persons

228
00:29:15,280 --> 00:29:20,120
 and the director should certify and provide all of the names of the commissioners to the

229
00:29:20,120 --> 00:29:25,320
 department head. The eligibility list is created -- well, created considering the applicant's

230
00:29:25,320 --> 00:29:33,040
 oral interview board and the chief's oral interview board score and the chief's interview

231
00:29:33,040 --> 00:29:49,480
 score as outlined for Article 4, Section 7. And that's of the police meeting confer agreement.

232
00:29:49,480 --> 00:29:51,800
 Any questions on that? >> No.

233
00:29:51,800 --> 00:29:57,200
 >> No. >> So this is different from the fire department.

234
00:29:57,200 --> 00:30:04,180
 They only use the scores from their exams. This is saying that there's an oral interview

235
00:30:04,180 --> 00:30:07,840
 board and a chief's interview. This is for the police.

236
00:30:07,840 --> 00:30:13,880
 >> Let me go to the -- >> Yes.

237
00:30:13,880 --> 00:30:28,760
 >> Right about now, I'm actually missing my two screens on my computer.

238
00:30:28,760 --> 00:30:47,160
 >> Yes. >> Section 7.

239
00:30:47,160 --> 00:31:15,080
 >> Sorry, I have several different scores, several different papers here.

240
00:31:15,080 --> 00:31:27,160
 >> Okay. Yes, that's in the police one. Meeting confer agreement. And this is regarding the

241
00:31:27,160 --> 00:31:35,740
 beginning positions. >> I thought maybe we were talking about something

242
00:31:35,740 --> 00:31:38,720
 different, but I thought at the last meeting we were trying to make sure that the police

243
00:31:38,720 --> 00:31:42,880
 and fire were kind of doing the same type of thing or at least following the same protocol.

244
00:31:42,880 --> 00:31:50,160
 So you're saying police takes into consideration interviews and oral interview scores and all

245
00:31:50,160 --> 00:31:56,800
 of it, but fire doesn't? >> I can answer from the fire's perspective.

246
00:31:56,800 --> 00:32:02,040
 So in fire departments, you have the entry-level exam. It goes to the commission for approval.

247
00:32:02,040 --> 00:32:06,240
 That is the commission list. From that, the next steps in the hiring process for entry-level

248
00:32:06,240 --> 00:32:12,040
 is a two-part interview process. So it's an oral review panel of peers in the department

249
00:32:12,040 --> 00:32:17,400
 along with one civilian and then that counts 70% of the score and 30% is actually a chief's

250
00:32:17,400 --> 00:32:22,200
 interview. So you accumulate those and you take a group of 15 people and they are kind

251
00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:26,920
 of banded together. At the end of that interview process, they are recalculated, repositioned

252
00:32:26,920 --> 00:32:31,720
 based on interview scores as well. So that is what creates the eligibility list that the

253
00:32:31,720 --> 00:32:35,760
 department uses to hire off of. And they go straight down that list, 1 through 15, unless

254
00:32:35,760 --> 00:32:42,360
 there's a reason to bypass. >> That's only for the entry level?

255
00:32:42,360 --> 00:32:43,360
 >> Yes, ma'am. >> For promotional?

256
00:32:43,360 --> 00:32:49,440
 >> Correct. Any other promotional, we have to follow 143, but strictly the written exam.

257
00:32:49,440 --> 00:32:56,280
 >> Okay. But that's not the same for police? >> Police is a little bit different. Their

258
00:32:56,280 --> 00:33:01,320
 placement on the eligibility list is based on the written exam alone. And then they have

259
00:33:01,320 --> 00:33:05,880
 to get a cumulative score of 70 and higher. Promotional candidates would be subject to

260
00:33:05,880 --> 00:33:09,920
 a written exam and then they have an oral presentation as well that they have to do.

261
00:33:09,920 --> 00:33:18,920
 >> Is that entry only? >> For the entry only, for initially for a

262
00:33:18,920 --> 00:33:25,720
 beginning position, it's based on a written examination only. And then for promotional

263
00:33:25,720 --> 00:33:33,400
 candidates, they subject to a written examination as well as an oral presentation that they

264
00:33:33,400 --> 00:33:38,600
 have to do. And then those scores are sort of added together again at that point. They

265
00:33:38,600 --> 00:33:45,000
 will be ranked according to their score on the eligibility list. Any other questions

266
00:33:45,000 --> 00:33:51,980
 about that particular section? So both of those rules were based, it was changed based

267
00:33:51,980 --> 00:33:59,780
 on the meeting conferred agreements. >> Okay. Stephanie, can you help me? Maybe

268
00:33:59,780 --> 00:34:04,900
 I'm a little confused. So there's meeting conferred that the police department along

269
00:34:04,900 --> 00:34:10,140
 with the association, I guess, work together and they pass?

270
00:34:10,140 --> 00:34:13,120
 >> Yes. >> And then this is rules and regulations

271
00:34:13,120 --> 00:34:16,120
 from the commission? >> Uh-huh. Yes.

272
00:34:16,120 --> 00:34:22,560
 >> The two, how do we make sure that the two, like which one supersedes the other? Are they

273
00:34:22,560 --> 00:34:26,560
 not? Are they just? >> The meeting conferred agreement, because

274
00:34:26,560 --> 00:34:32,400
 it does obligate the city from a contractual obligation, it would supersede the commission

275
00:34:32,400 --> 00:34:38,560
 rules, basically. The reason why we're having to modify the rules is because we need to

276
00:34:38,560 --> 00:34:44,560
 make the local rules comply with what was agreed upon based on the meeting conferred agreement.

277
00:34:44,560 --> 00:34:50,440
 >> Okay. So we're taking our commission rules and regulations from the commission to reflect

278
00:34:50,440 --> 00:34:56,440
 what they've already passed? >> Yes. Basically. Yeah. Because we want to

279
00:34:56,440 --> 00:35:02,320
 make sure that both of them are in sync, they coincide with one another and not in conflict.

280
00:35:02,320 --> 00:35:05,960
 But if you ask me which one would supersede, it would be the meeting conferred agreement,

281
00:35:05,960 --> 00:35:10,680
 because it's a contractual obligation for the city at this point.

282
00:35:10,680 --> 00:35:14,800
 >> That's correct. >> Ours is what? Just guidelines?

283
00:35:14,800 --> 00:35:19,160
 >> Yeah. Pretty much guidelines. And then, you know, I think it's important also for

284
00:35:19,160 --> 00:35:24,400
 you guys to take a look at it, because obviously over the years or as you continue to review

285
00:35:24,400 --> 00:35:29,240
 cases, you may have some modifications that you want to do, you know, just based on your

286
00:35:29,240 --> 00:35:35,400
 proceedings and, you know, your rules that govern the commission. But we still have to

287
00:35:35,400 --> 00:35:41,760
 make sure that those rules are in compliance with the meeting conferred agreement and obviously

288
00:35:41,760 --> 00:35:48,720
 the Texas local government code as well and any other relevant statute or law.

289
00:35:48,720 --> 00:35:56,440
 >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, we're still on rule number

290
00:35:56,440 --> 00:36:06,160
 three. But we're going to go to number 11, where it has working day. That language has

291
00:36:06,160 --> 00:36:13,120
 been revised slightly because a question came up regarding working day. And this is just

292
00:36:13,120 --> 00:36:19,800
 in regard to accrued holiday vacation sick leave time, because as you know, the police

293
00:36:19,800 --> 00:36:26,240
 department as well as the fire department, many of the employees work various shifts.

294
00:36:26,240 --> 00:36:35,280
 And so a question came up as to how much their work -- what a working day would look like.

295
00:36:35,280 --> 00:36:42,080
 And that's in regard to accumulation or accrued holiday vacation and sick leave time. And

296
00:36:42,080 --> 00:36:50,440
 so that language was modified for clarification to show it's eight hours. All right. Next

297
00:36:50,440 --> 00:37:01,600
 rule is number eight. And this one here, language was just added to just sort of modify this

298
00:37:01,600 --> 00:37:08,120
 for modification for clarification purposes. And you'll see that in this particular rule,

299
00:37:08,120 --> 00:37:13,840
 we just added language. While the commission is not required to approve departmental rules,

300
00:37:13,840 --> 00:37:19,320
 no such departmental rules should be in conflict with the provisions of the civil service rules.

301
00:37:19,320 --> 00:37:24,680
 So we're just trying to make sure that there's no conflict of interest there.

302
00:37:24,680 --> 00:37:29,680
 >> And when you say civil service rules, you're saying chapter 133 of the Texas code.

303
00:37:29,680 --> 00:37:34,040
 >> No. We're talking about the civil service commission rules.

304
00:37:34,040 --> 00:37:41,840
 And what I can do is add clarification and make sure I include civil service commission

305
00:37:41,840 --> 00:37:58,400
 rules. I'll add civil service commission rules on there. Any other questions about that?

306
00:37:58,400 --> 00:38:08,820
 And we also included the city manager also to be involved with any changes in the rules

307
00:38:08,820 --> 00:38:24,560
 in that regard. All right. Now we're moving to rule number 14. This rule deals with appointment

308
00:38:24,560 --> 00:38:30,360
 and removal of person classified immediately below the department head. The revision that

309
00:38:30,360 --> 00:38:39,120
 we made in that regard is the first paragraph of that section. If the position are approved

310
00:38:39,120 --> 00:38:43,960
 by the city council, by ordinance, the chief of police department and chief of the fire

311
00:38:43,960 --> 00:38:49,000
 department are hereby authorized to appoint each person occupying the authorized position

312
00:38:49,000 --> 00:38:54,460
 in the classification immediately below that of the department head as allowed by state

313
00:38:54,460 --> 00:39:03,320
 law. And when I say state law, that's in regard to Texas local government code, chapter 143.

314
00:39:03,320 --> 00:39:10,080
 We also included language referring to the meeting confer agreement that was recently

315
00:39:10,080 --> 00:39:16,800
 approved dated for September 24th of 2019. And again, we mentioned it again in the last

316
00:39:16,800 --> 00:39:25,080
 paragraph there. We made reference to the article relevant in the meeting confer agreement

317
00:39:25,080 --> 00:39:33,100
 that was approved on September 24th of 2019. Any questions or concerns about that one before

318
00:39:33,100 --> 00:39:43,640
 we move on? All right. Well, rule number 23, A, subsection A, we made changes to that.

319
00:39:43,640 --> 00:39:50,020
 And in that one, based on the language that was approved in the police meeting confer

320
00:39:50,020 --> 00:39:57,080
 agreement that was approved by city council, a candidate must be 21 years of age and cannot

321
00:39:57,080 --> 00:40:09,520
 be any older than 45. And that's on the date of the entry level test. So they have to be

322
00:40:09,520 --> 00:40:17,680
 at least, and they can't be any older than age 45. And that's at the time that they take

323
00:40:17,680 --> 00:40:24,440
 the test. Any questions on that one? Okay. We're going to rule number 25, dealing with

324
00:40:24,440 --> 00:40:43,280
 the entrance exams. And this one here, we had some language that was changed. And we

325
00:40:43,280 --> 00:40:49,080
 basically, we didn't have a specific number and we didn't specify the number of months

326
00:40:49,080 --> 00:40:55,800
 that the eligibility list was good for. So for clarification purposes, we included that

327
00:40:55,800 --> 00:41:03,680
 the list would be at least good for at least 12 months, basically. The changes that we

328
00:41:03,680 --> 00:41:11,880
 also made in regard to the fire meeting confer agreement, they have some additional points

329
00:41:11,880 --> 00:41:23,120
 that new entry employees would get be awarded. And those additional points include one additional

330
00:41:23,120 --> 00:41:30,040
 points if they completed the independent school district high school fire program, and they

331
00:41:30,040 --> 00:41:35,640
 obtain a certification through that particular program. They also get an additional point

332
00:41:35,640 --> 00:41:42,040
 if they have the completion of the EMT program when they're in high school as well and receive

333
00:41:42,040 --> 00:41:46,320
 that certification from the Department of State Health Services. And lastly, they get

334
00:41:46,320 --> 00:41:51,800
 an additional point if they reside within the city of Denton. So that's based on the

335
00:41:51,800 --> 00:41:56,760
 approved fire and meet and confer agreement. So I included that language in this section

336
00:41:56,760 --> 00:42:02,400
 also. Stephanie, you may have caught these, but

337
00:42:02,400 --> 00:42:14,680
 I did see some typos in my addition out of high school. And obtained, not and obtained,

338
00:42:14,680 --> 00:42:26,360
 but and obtained certification. Just so you got those, make it as clean as we can.

339
00:42:26,360 --> 00:42:35,080
 Thank you, Commissioner. All right. And then if we go further down, the next paragraph

340
00:42:35,080 --> 00:42:40,400
 after that where it has when requested is pretty much the same, but we did make modifications

341
00:42:40,400 --> 00:42:47,600
 to that last paragraph that's highlighted there for you. And basically talks about,

342
00:42:47,600 --> 00:42:52,000
 and this is based on the police meeting confer agreement, candidates with the passing score

343
00:42:52,000 --> 00:42:58,200
 will be placed on the eligibility list in the order of their overall eligibility scores.

344
00:42:58,200 --> 00:43:03,760
 And that includes test scores plus any additional points. The entire eligibility list will be

345
00:43:03,760 --> 00:43:09,880
 provided to the police department at one time for further processing. And all those applicants

346
00:43:09,880 --> 00:43:17,920
 will be considered to have been referred at that time. New eligibility lists may be created

347
00:43:17,920 --> 00:43:23,600
 while an active list is being processed. The effective date of an eligibility list may

348
00:43:23,600 --> 00:43:29,320
 be set to coincide with the expiration of the eligibility list, a time period between

349
00:43:29,320 --> 00:43:37,600
 three and 12 months until a specified number of candidates for an academic class have been

350
00:43:37,600 --> 00:43:43,000
 hired in any combination of these. The condition that will determine when an active list may

351
00:43:43,000 --> 00:43:55,080
 be closed, other than by commission, must be determined prior to the posting of the exam.

352
00:43:55,080 --> 00:43:59,360
 Candidates may not be hired from an eligibility list that is graded after an existing active

353
00:43:59,360 --> 00:44:05,840
 eligibility list has been established until the existing list has been exhausted or expired.

354
00:44:05,840 --> 00:44:13,040
 An exception to this is when an officer, a city of police officer is reappointed as a

355
00:44:13,040 --> 00:44:17,880
 lateral insurance officer. And they may be processed as such and hired while an existing

356
00:44:17,880 --> 00:44:25,040
 eligibility list is in effect. And then it also goes on the state with the approval of

357
00:44:25,040 --> 00:44:28,760
 the Civil Service Commission, the Civil Service that recommend closed and eligibility lists

358
00:44:28,760 --> 00:44:34,000
 and counsel candidates processing if sufficient reason as determined by the commission is

359
00:44:34,000 --> 00:44:39,360
 to do so. And this is in accordance with the Article 4, Section 6 of the Public Meeting

360
00:44:39,360 --> 00:44:45,560
 Conferring Agreement. I know that was a long one. Anyone have any questions on that one?

361
00:44:45,560 --> 00:44:53,400
 So basically you're saying that they can't hire anyone from the new list until the previous

362
00:44:53,400 --> 00:45:02,040
 list that was adopted has been exhausted. Yes. But the further you go down on the eligibility

363
00:45:02,040 --> 00:45:07,120
 list, say on that initial list that had already been approved, I have a candidate that scored

364
00:45:07,120 --> 00:45:14,000
 a 75. And they met the minimum requirement and they're still right there waiting. But

365
00:45:14,000 --> 00:45:18,480
 in my new list, I have candidates that scored hundreds. You're saying they can't hire from

366
00:45:18,480 --> 00:45:23,320
 the new list until this other person has been hired? That's correct. And they have to be

367
00:45:23,320 --> 00:45:30,280
 hired if they passed? Not necessarily. They do have, you know, and we very seldom use

368
00:45:30,280 --> 00:45:35,040
 this. They do have what's called a bypass, you know, but there's some requirements under

369
00:45:35,040 --> 00:45:43,720
 the Texas Local Government Code before you can utilize that. But yes, typically, routinely,

370
00:45:43,720 --> 00:45:49,480
 they should, you know, pick from the list, the eligibility list. Okay. So let's say that

371
00:45:49,480 --> 00:45:55,240
 the 12 months has passed. You're saying it's better. So if I didn't hire that last person

372
00:45:55,240 --> 00:46:00,480
 on my first eligibility list and the 12 months has passed, that list has expired, and that

373
00:46:00,480 --> 00:46:04,600
 person just falls off, do they have to take the new another civil service exam to be added

374
00:46:04,600 --> 00:46:11,400
 to the new list? Yes. Once the list is exhausted, they would have to retest again. Okay. What

375
00:46:11,400 --> 00:46:17,920
 would be a reason for the commission to close the eligibility list? That last couple of

376
00:46:17,920 --> 00:46:25,280
 sentences you read. Yeah. And I'm not really sure, to be honest, right now. I don't think

377
00:46:25,280 --> 00:46:33,240
 we even look at that list after we approve it. Yeah. You could say this COVID-19 might

378
00:46:33,240 --> 00:46:38,520
 be an example of where we're not going to process because we can't have an academy class

379
00:46:38,520 --> 00:46:43,760
 now because of the close nature. So there may be circumstances where the commission

380
00:46:43,760 --> 00:46:51,920
 wants to do that. It just gives you the right to do something if you feel it's appropriate.

381
00:46:51,920 --> 00:46:57,560
 And if learning and reading the language, I mean, that would be the civil service director

382
00:46:57,560 --> 00:47:05,880
 would bring that list, bring the reason for closing out that list to us. And we could

383
00:47:05,880 --> 00:47:14,320
 probably if the reason seemed to be flawed, then we could say, no, we don't initiate the

384
00:47:14,320 --> 00:47:24,880
 closing of it. We simply approve it from the director, civil service director. Is that

385
00:47:24,880 --> 00:47:35,400
 correct? Yes. But obviously I would not, I mean, if I brought it to your attention, I

386
00:47:35,400 --> 00:47:39,560
 would need your approval because they early on would say with your approval, the civil

387
00:47:39,560 --> 00:47:45,720
 service director would be eligible to list. You would have a reason. Exactly. You would

388
00:47:45,720 --> 00:47:51,120
 have a reason to bring it to us. Yes. And there would be some special circumstances

389
00:47:51,120 --> 00:48:02,080
 for sure. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Nope. Okay. We're going to go to

390
00:48:02,080 --> 00:48:14,740
 rule number 25, reappointment after resignation. Again, this is based on language that was

391
00:48:14,740 --> 00:48:19,800
 added. If a person is being appointed as a lateral entry level police officer, the officer

392
00:48:19,800 --> 00:48:25,840
 may not be less than age 21 and must not have reached their 45th birthday. So that's just

393
00:48:25,840 --> 00:48:32,560
 for applicable to lateral positions. Then if we go to rule number 26 and number 27, that

394
00:48:32,560 --> 00:48:38,320
 was some changes there for clarification. It states that upon certification of the commission

395
00:48:38,320 --> 00:48:43,040
 list for fire procedures for filling a beginning position in the fire department shall be in

396
00:48:43,040 --> 00:48:48,140
 accordance with article four of the meeting confer agreement. And then it states upon

397
00:48:48,140 --> 00:48:53,760
 certification of the eligibility list for police procedures for filing a beginning position

398
00:48:53,760 --> 00:48:57,520
 in the police department shall be made in accordance with article four of the police

399
00:48:57,520 --> 00:49:02,400
 meeting confer agreement. Acceptance applies to officers hired under the modified hiring

400
00:49:02,400 --> 00:49:10,040
 process. That's described in article four of section 11, are for reappointment of police

401
00:49:10,040 --> 00:49:21,560
 officers. Any questions in that regard? Nope. Moving on to the next one. Rule number 27,

402
00:49:21,560 --> 00:49:28,680
 the probationary period. This one just provides that the commission hereby extends the probationary

403
00:49:28,680 --> 00:49:33,920
 period by six months for a total of 18 months for all persons appointed to the beginning

404
00:49:33,920 --> 00:49:44,520
 position in the police and fire department as provided under chapter 143.027. In the

405
00:49:44,520 --> 00:49:49,320
 next section that was revised of that same section is the meeting conferring is approved

406
00:49:49,320 --> 00:49:56,120
 by the city council on September 26th of 2006 and subsequent agreements, which mentions

407
00:49:56,120 --> 00:50:05,440
 September 24th, 2019. It included these provisions below. A, for police all new hires for police

408
00:50:05,440 --> 00:50:11,240
 positions hired lateral entry officer, applicants and reappointed officers will serve a one

409
00:50:11,240 --> 00:50:18,120
 year probation beginning on the date of being commissioned or recommissioned as a police

410
00:50:18,120 --> 00:50:26,880
 officer. This is inclusive of current police officers commission on or before the ratification

411
00:50:26,880 --> 00:50:36,520
 of the agreement. Any questions in that regard? Nope. Moving on to rule number 30. That language

412
00:50:36,520 --> 00:50:42,680
 was revised slightly just to make mention or reference the new meeting confer agreements

413
00:50:42,680 --> 00:50:51,920
 that was approved on September 24th of 2019. Then if we go to rule number 32, the number

414
00:50:51,920 --> 00:51:00,880
 was specifically changed here in terms of how many officers or firefighters have to

415
00:51:00,880 --> 00:51:09,360
 be present for a test to be taken. And we have to receive a minimum of two completed

416
00:51:09,360 --> 00:51:15,760
 notice of intent to test forms and that's for promotional examinations, not entry level

417
00:51:15,760 --> 00:51:28,280
 promotional examinations. Any questions on that? And if we go to rule number 32, section

418
00:51:28,280 --> 00:51:36,360
 B, there was revisions in that regard and that, and it talks about if in the event the

419
00:51:36,360 --> 00:51:40,000
 department head believes the security of a test has been compromised, the department

420
00:51:40,000 --> 00:51:46,360
 head at his or her sole discretion may administer a substitute test in compliance with Texas

421
00:51:46,360 --> 00:51:57,120
 local government code 143.32A. And then number four was added. Also, all remote tests shall

422
00:51:57,120 --> 00:52:06,680
 be conducted in compliance with 142.032 of the Texas local government code. All right.

423
00:52:06,680 --> 00:52:15,320
 Moving on to number 33 regarding promotional examination grades in regard to seniority points.

424
00:52:15,320 --> 00:52:21,440
 If you go down to section A, what we did there, we modified that first paragraph and the language

425
00:52:21,440 --> 00:52:28,600
 now has a firefighter or a police officer must score at least 70 on a written exam before

426
00:52:28,600 --> 00:52:37,080
 any seniority points are added for a total score on the eligibility list. Any questions

427
00:52:37,080 --> 00:52:43,520
 on that? Comments? No? Then rule number 34 regarding review and appeal of promotional

428
00:52:43,520 --> 00:52:55,560
 examination. We made some changes in that regard. And if you go to A, the new language

429
00:52:55,560 --> 00:53:00,840
 has upon completion of grading, each promotional candidate by himself or herself may review

430
00:53:00,840 --> 00:53:06,800
 his or her examination and answers. The examination grading and the source material for the examination

431
00:53:06,800 --> 00:53:14,720
 in the presence of a monitor designated by the civil service director. If filing an appeal,

432
00:53:14,720 --> 00:53:19,760
 the notice of appeal must be filed with the civil service director or designee in writing

433
00:53:19,760 --> 00:53:27,680
 by 5 p.m. on the 5th business day. And that's exclusive to the date of the posting of the

434
00:53:27,680 --> 00:53:33,360
 wrong scores. And they must include the basis for their appeal. Appeals shall be limited

435
00:53:33,360 --> 00:53:39,840
 to the quoted source material. If the appeal does not include the basis and is not limited

436
00:53:39,840 --> 00:53:46,480
 to the quoted source material, it will not be considered by the commission. And just

437
00:53:46,480 --> 00:53:58,720
 to confirm, that's for the fire department and the police department. Stephanie, of course,

438
00:53:58,720 --> 00:54:11,800
 this was the issue that we ran into. Yes. What do we mean by, what do they mean, I don't

439
00:54:11,800 --> 00:54:22,240
 know what pronoun to use, by the quoted source material? Do they mean the quoted material

440
00:54:22,240 --> 00:54:31,000
 from this? Or do they mean from the particular book, from the particular page of a particular

441
00:54:31,000 --> 00:54:36,800
 book? I mean, that became part of the issue in our last appeals that I would like to see

442
00:54:36,800 --> 00:54:43,560
 clarified for all of us. Yes. I'm sorry to answer our commission. That's all right. It

443
00:54:43,560 --> 00:54:54,280
 was just a point of angst. Some other page, other than one, you know, book that's in conflict,

444
00:54:54,280 --> 00:54:59,960
 but it's still on the list. So what do you mean by source list? I don't know if that's

445
00:54:59,960 --> 00:55:06,760
 a question for the local rules or meeting confer, or where that needs to be clarified,

446
00:55:06,760 --> 00:55:17,440
 but there's a, to not get too much into the history, this all started a few years back

447
00:55:17,440 --> 00:55:24,140
 when somebody brought in an internet article on a medication for EMTs that said it was

448
00:55:24,140 --> 00:55:34,720
 just as good as another, as the keyed answer. So anyway, how do we address this issue? I

449
00:55:34,720 --> 00:55:42,720
 think the commissioners all want this addressed. Yeah, okay. Chief Harris, if I could get some

450
00:55:42,720 --> 00:55:51,040
 input from you, because based on the meeting confer agreement for police, they edit language

451
00:55:51,040 --> 00:55:58,480
 that stated that the, you know, based on chapter section 143.034 of the Texas Local Government

452
00:55:58,480 --> 00:56:10,640
 Code, that the source material should be limited, the appeals should be limited to the quoted

453
00:56:10,640 --> 00:56:16,840
 source material attribute to the reference examination question. So I think they tried

454
00:56:16,840 --> 00:56:23,880
 to basically clarify what was meant by quoted material. So my question for you in regard

455
00:56:23,880 --> 00:56:30,760
 to the fire department, is it limited in that same manner, or is it different? I mean, what

456
00:56:30,760 --> 00:56:36,560
 is meant by the quoted source material? The intent behind the quoted source material was

457
00:56:36,560 --> 00:56:42,920
 to limit the question from the exact book. And that's the reason why we actually specify

458
00:56:42,920 --> 00:56:47,920
 this book and which questions come from that specific book, because I mean, taking these

459
00:56:47,920 --> 00:56:52,480
 tests for years, and you cannot write a test that does not have conflicting information.

460
00:56:52,480 --> 00:56:56,020
 Fire Service books out there, they do conflict. Anybody can tell you that unless we use one

461
00:56:56,020 --> 00:57:01,160
 book. So we try to narrow it down from this specific book, this is the question, even

462
00:57:01,160 --> 00:57:04,840
 though we know it could conflict with another source material book. But when we go to the

463
00:57:04,840 --> 00:57:08,120
 commission to print these books, we don't have time to vet all those books. That's after

464
00:57:08,120 --> 00:57:12,600
 the fact. We even have an outside party write these tests now as well. So one thing we've

465
00:57:12,600 --> 00:57:16,760
 done in the past, and I was just checking on Chief Skipper, sending me a text on this.

466
00:57:16,760 --> 00:57:21,520
 So we have actually included the book down to the page number where the question comes

467
00:57:21,520 --> 00:57:25,600
 from in the past. And I guess we didn't do that on this test. That's something we moved

468
00:57:25,600 --> 00:57:31,800
 forwards on. In the words, this test question comes from page three, off this book as well.

469
00:57:31,800 --> 00:57:35,000
 And that narrows that funnel down where they don't have the ability to find something in

470
00:57:35,000 --> 00:57:41,280
 the back of the book. But I mean, our hands are kind of tied on these test candidates.

471
00:57:41,280 --> 00:57:45,280
 They spend a lot of time. I mean, they may read these books, you know, five, six, seven,

472
00:57:45,280 --> 00:57:50,400
 eight times. So they have these memorized way better than the test writer themselves.

473
00:57:50,400 --> 00:57:53,360
 So you already have a disadvantage going into the pills, that they know this and they put

474
00:57:53,360 --> 00:57:57,440
 a lot of effort into the pills process. So it's two-part. Yeah, you study for the test,

475
00:57:57,440 --> 00:58:01,840
 but also you study and prepare for the pills. So there are intent on the quarter source

476
00:58:01,840 --> 00:58:06,120
 material may be a little vague where we need to narrow it down and even how we generate

477
00:58:06,120 --> 00:58:12,280
 the test to be specific. Book, page number, this question as well. That's the best I have

478
00:58:12,280 --> 00:58:17,080
 right now. I don't know if, you know, we're open to suggestions. We are. But we have some

479
00:58:17,080 --> 00:58:23,080
 very smart individuals out there that know how to, you know, make a very effective appeal.

480
00:58:23,080 --> 00:58:29,400
 The source materials are what you post at least 90 days in advance of the test, right?

481
00:58:29,400 --> 00:58:36,120
 Correct. So all the questions come from what's posted. It might be a book and a chapter and

482
00:58:36,120 --> 00:58:45,480
 that type of thing. So I mean, isn't that where any, I mean, when it says source materials,

483
00:58:45,480 --> 00:58:51,880
 isn't it what we've posted 90 days in advance? Yes, we have a list of emotional source materials.

484
00:58:51,880 --> 00:58:56,720
 So if we have eight books, there's eight different books listed. But then we go down into pulling

485
00:58:56,720 --> 00:59:01,640
 the questions out where you may have book one and book two may have very similar questions,

486
00:59:01,640 --> 00:59:05,640
 but you're asking from the book one. And that's where you specify this question is coming

487
00:59:05,640 --> 00:59:10,240
 from book one, this page, even though we all know, but two may conflict that same question

488
00:59:10,240 --> 00:59:15,400
 as well to answer. So when you ask a question, would it say something like, according to

489
00:59:15,400 --> 00:59:22,840
 Smith and Jones, blah, blah, blah? And then you ask the question. So the question's not

490
00:59:22,840 --> 00:59:27,400
 that specific that people would be confused as to which source material it's actually

491
00:59:27,400 --> 00:59:28,400
 coming from.

492
00:59:28,400 --> 00:59:31,920
 I know from experience, if you don't study enough, yes, you could be confused if you study

493
00:59:31,920 --> 00:59:37,680
 and know the conflicting difference between the two books. That is the big issue right

494
00:59:37,680 --> 00:59:42,600
 here is the fact that if you're not understanding the material and you start catching those

495
00:59:42,600 --> 00:59:47,280
 little caveats where they do conflict, yes, you have a good appeal. If you studied it

496
00:59:47,280 --> 00:59:51,680
 and you know that book one, book two conflicts, but I personally saw on there that this was

497
00:59:51,680 --> 00:59:55,440
 taken from book one, I know that answer. I know it's right as well versus the person

498
00:59:55,440 --> 00:59:59,680
 that, well, I think two's right also, I'm on appeal because it was in two. No, the intent

499
00:59:59,680 --> 01:00:04,640
 was this book one, we identified it was from book one, even down to the page number. It's

500
01:00:04,640 --> 01:00:12,920
 a process and just how we get to a better process to reduce the appeals.

501
01:00:12,920 --> 01:00:18,040
 May I say something? I don't know that, especially by giving eight books and those books are

502
01:00:18,040 --> 01:00:21,880
 thick books and they're books that you have to think through and that you have to read

503
01:00:21,880 --> 01:00:26,200
 carefully. And like you said, I mean, they take a long time studying. I don't know that

504
01:00:26,200 --> 01:00:32,560
 it's fair to ask a one-line question that is complete, just directly quoted from the

505
01:00:32,560 --> 01:00:40,880
 book and ask them to pick an answer from a certain page. But let's say that they pick

506
01:00:40,880 --> 01:00:45,440
 a different answer and that same answer is justified in the same book, just not on that

507
01:00:45,440 --> 01:00:51,040
 page number. I don't feel comfortable with saying this is from this book on this page

508
01:00:51,040 --> 01:00:58,440
 and this line. I just don't think that's good test taking or test giving, especially from

509
01:00:58,440 --> 01:01:05,280
 our appeals, from the appeals that I've seen. If the point was made, the police department

510
01:01:05,280 --> 01:01:08,720
 they write, so this is directly from this book and it gives you the author and then

511
01:01:08,720 --> 01:01:13,320
 it gives you 20 questions, right? Okay, that's fair. They know that it's from that book.

512
01:01:13,320 --> 01:01:17,160
 So if they use another book to justify their wrong answer, then obviously we can, with

513
01:01:17,160 --> 01:01:21,640
 a clear conscience, we can say no, because it was referenced on that, you know, above

514
01:01:21,640 --> 01:01:27,440
 this question was this book. But if a question is done that way, the strongest appeals that

515
01:01:27,440 --> 01:01:31,760
 I've seen that I get the most conflict out of just within myself is when a person comes

516
01:01:31,760 --> 01:01:37,240
 in, they see that book, they don't agree with the answer that you guys had from a specific

517
01:01:37,240 --> 01:01:42,680
 page, but they do make a point to say, but on this page in that same book is my justified

518
01:01:42,680 --> 01:01:47,320
 answer. Does that make sense? It makes sense, but the whole intent behind

519
01:01:47,320 --> 01:01:50,160
 this was try to reduce and limit the number of appeals that commissioners would have to

520
01:01:50,160 --> 01:01:54,680
 review and go through. I mean, that would kind of open up where there's a bigger funnel

521
01:01:54,680 --> 01:01:58,960
 on appeals. Now you're talking about the entire book versus down page number. I mean, am I

522
01:01:58,960 --> 01:02:03,800
 not correct? Chief Skipper, we list the book that the questions are from right now. So

523
01:02:03,800 --> 01:02:08,520
 if we have the first 15 set of questions are from book one. So is that-

524
01:02:08,520 --> 01:02:12,800
 But unless it's an open book test, how do you, you want to memorize every single line

525
01:02:12,800 --> 01:02:15,920
 from every single page? That's civil service. Well, there's no way

526
01:02:15,920 --> 01:02:20,240
 around it. That's state statute 143. We don't have the ability other than a memorization.

527
01:02:20,240 --> 01:02:26,080
 Yes. I mean, it's not the most efficient system out there. So yes, you're promoting people

528
01:02:26,080 --> 01:02:31,580
 off how well they study to memorize the material. So it's not just comprehending it. It is actually

529
01:02:31,580 --> 01:02:35,240
 memorization to be able to show conflicts from the front of the book to the back of

530
01:02:35,240 --> 01:02:40,320
 the book to different books as well. None of us can really, I mean, we don't necessarily

531
01:02:40,320 --> 01:02:44,680
 always agree with 143. It is what it is. It's our state law. We follow as well. That's the

532
01:02:44,680 --> 01:02:48,600
 reason why we feel very fortunate we was able to work with fire association. We change our

533
01:02:48,600 --> 01:02:52,200
 entry level process because it used to, on our entry level candidates, it was strictly

534
01:02:52,200 --> 01:02:55,960
 by a test. So you couldn't judge them on an interview panel or anything. They didn't really

535
01:02:55,960 --> 01:02:59,800
 hold much weight whatsoever. We couldn't move them around. It was like a pass or fail. Yeah,

536
01:02:59,800 --> 01:03:03,760
 you pass an interview, you didn't. Now we get to base entry level on that person, how

537
01:03:03,760 --> 01:03:08,320
 well they answered questions as that worked the job. We haven't transferred that into

538
01:03:08,320 --> 01:03:13,960
 the promotion process. We've added features they need to complete just to be able to take

539
01:03:13,960 --> 01:03:20,160
 the test, but we haven't got to the more subjective review in the test process. I know it's kind

540
01:03:20,160 --> 01:03:24,640
 of long-winded, but yeah. No, but that makes sense because that's helpful. So, but you,

541
01:03:24,640 --> 01:03:29,240
 it's not prohibited under 143 for you to make those modifications for promotional exams

542
01:03:29,240 --> 01:03:34,080
 as well to include an interview and to include, it is prohibited? Yes, and it states just

543
01:03:34,080 --> 01:03:39,560
 a civil service test examination as well. Unless we worked with a fire association to put something

544
01:03:39,560 --> 01:03:44,760
 in Meet Confer to go outside the normal boundaries of 143. We had to do that when we added all

545
01:03:44,760 --> 01:03:49,240
 the additions to the promotional exam. You have to have your fire officer choose certificates

546
01:03:49,240 --> 01:03:54,520
 and these other things because that is outside normal 143 requirements. So yes, any changes

547
01:03:54,520 --> 01:03:59,880
 to that would require adjustments to the Meet Confer contract. Did you give me a copy of

548
01:03:59,880 --> 01:04:09,080
 the 143? All right. That's the big book. Just for that language. That's the, that's the

549
01:04:09,080 --> 01:04:17,080
 big, the big book that you got when you became a commissioner. Yeah. What? I'm sorry. I didn't

550
01:04:17,080 --> 01:04:25,280
 hear what you said. I said it's a real, real, real big book. That we get about once every

551
01:04:25,280 --> 01:04:32,920
 two years or something like that, we get an update. Yeah. Okay. I just, I don't know.

552
01:04:32,920 --> 01:04:39,680
 I don't, I don't, my, my thing is on this, the language that you put on the revised where

553
01:04:39,680 --> 01:04:46,640
 it says appeals should be quoted source material. I think if you, if you, even if you took the

554
01:04:46,640 --> 01:04:52,280
 quoted word out and just said limited to the source material that is referenced or however

555
01:04:52,280 --> 01:05:00,520
 you want to write it so that we know that it's the source material goes with this question.

556
01:05:00,520 --> 01:05:05,520
 You know what I mean? And it can be quoted, the defense from, you know, whenever the,

557
01:05:05,520 --> 01:05:10,200
 the department's right there, justification of upholding the key is that it's a direct

558
01:05:10,200 --> 01:05:16,120
 quote. Okay. Well, that's fine. But if, but if a officer or a firefighter comes and they've

559
01:05:16,120 --> 01:05:19,920
 put enough time that says, yes, this is a quoted source, you know, this is a direct

560
01:05:19,920 --> 01:05:26,560
 quote from page 153, but on page 277, you know, this is this and this and this and this

561
01:05:26,560 --> 01:05:31,720
 justifies my answer. And so there's, they're not saying that this answer was wrong, but

562
01:05:31,720 --> 01:05:35,880
 they're saying that this answer is also right. Then if that's written into that, you know,

563
01:05:35,880 --> 01:05:41,680
 I mean, that would be, I think that would make it more fair because then we put parameters

564
01:05:41,680 --> 01:05:46,280
 around it. We're not saying to go through other outside books, not referenced on this

565
01:05:46,280 --> 01:05:51,200
 25 questions the department said, but we are given a little bit of latitude where it's

566
01:05:51,200 --> 01:05:55,880
 a good appeal. They're saying that it's justified. I understand that it was on page 156, but

567
01:05:55,880 --> 01:06:01,680
 I didn't read when 56 says carefully, but I did really read, you know, 300 and they

568
01:06:01,680 --> 01:06:06,960
 make a good solid appeal. Then I think that should be allowed. But, but to, to ask them,

569
01:06:06,960 --> 01:06:15,120
 those books are like five, 600 pages and we're asking them to, to take a direct quote from

570
01:06:15,120 --> 01:06:22,840
 basically 4,000 pages when it's that many books. So my, my only suggestion would be

571
01:06:22,840 --> 01:06:28,320
 is, would that even be possible? Does it make sense? Does it matter to take the quoted part

572
01:06:28,320 --> 01:06:30,400
 and to reference source material?

573
01:06:30,400 --> 01:06:36,360
 I mean, from my perspective, I'm fine with that language, whatever the commission, you

574
01:06:36,360 --> 01:06:41,520
 know, really desires to be on there. Like I said, the whole intent was to try to reduce

575
01:06:41,520 --> 01:06:45,840
 the amount in scope of the appeals and just try to make it more streamlined. This is really

576
01:06:45,840 --> 01:06:49,880
 their only opportunity. They take a test and the only opportunity to make any justice modifications

577
01:06:49,880 --> 01:06:54,320
 is through that they'll process with the commission. And I don't mind, I don't mind us working

578
01:06:54,320 --> 01:06:58,160
 and helping with those appeals. I mean, I'm thinking, man, they took all this time. They

579
01:06:58,160 --> 01:07:01,800
 took the test. They're the ones that's, and that's also another thing. When they come

580
01:07:01,800 --> 01:07:06,200
 and they present a cohesive appeal, they spend the time, they sit through the whole, you

581
01:07:06,200 --> 01:07:10,200
 know, two hours, three hours that it takes us to go through everybody else's appeals.

582
01:07:10,200 --> 01:07:13,600
 And then if they're two or three minutes, you know, we hear them out. And if they've

583
01:07:13,600 --> 01:07:18,800
 gone through all that trouble and they can present a cohesive argument, a good argument,

584
01:07:18,800 --> 01:07:24,160
 a persuasive argument, then we should, and we should approve their appeal. But that would,

585
01:07:24,160 --> 01:07:27,880
 that would give us a little bit more than just saying, well, it's quoted from page 156

586
01:07:27,880 --> 01:07:32,000
 on this book. So then when, when you say that as a commissioner, I feel like I'm locked

587
01:07:32,000 --> 01:07:35,280
 in. Well, if it's quoted and the department said it's quoted, then I don't have anything

588
01:07:35,280 --> 01:07:41,080
 to say. I don't even need to think because you're already, you're already boxing me in.

589
01:07:41,080 --> 01:07:45,160
 Well, and I think the intent behind that was to remove some of the subjectivity as well

590
01:07:45,160 --> 01:07:50,360
 because there's a lot there. If you don't really try to zero in on where that test question

591
01:07:50,360 --> 01:07:55,480
 was generated from. That was the intent behind it. But like I said, we're flexible. We can

592
01:07:55,480 --> 01:07:59,880
 change whatever really kind of the commission's desire.

593
01:07:59,880 --> 01:08:08,180
 I think you're zeroing in by saying this book, this author. I don't like the page.

594
01:08:08,180 --> 01:08:15,080
 I think that if you, if you still put the book, the source material at the top, where

595
01:08:15,080 --> 01:08:24,140
 the questions one through 15 are from book one, but still allow, if, if book three says

596
01:08:24,140 --> 01:08:32,720
 something in conflict to that or addition to that, then more conflict, then, then that

597
01:08:32,720 --> 01:08:40,120
 should be a commissioner's decision to as to whether that's a valid approval or not.

598
01:08:40,120 --> 01:08:47,800
 So it's still the material that was published 90 days ahead of the test, but it's not necessarily

599
01:08:47,800 --> 01:09:00,120
 chapter, verse of a particular book because that's a lot of memorization for when they

600
01:09:00,120 --> 01:09:08,600
 don't have books out on the field anyway. But if they've got a valid, valid appeal outside

601
01:09:08,600 --> 01:09:17,080
 of the, the quoted book, I don't think that's a problem personally. And we've done that

602
01:09:17,080 --> 01:09:23,640
 before. We've had more problems since we've gone to the, it's direct quote out of the

603
01:09:23,640 --> 01:09:34,200
 book than we had when we were allowing them to quote material from the source material,

604
01:09:34,200 --> 01:09:37,200
 meaning the whole list.

605
01:09:37,200 --> 01:09:42,360
 I appreciate that. Let me just add some, so I actually have a personal example because

606
01:09:42,360 --> 01:09:48,600
 we all came up to this department taking these tests as well. So I had a scenario where I

607
01:09:48,600 --> 01:09:53,920
 studied and I knew the conflict between different books and went to the commission and I'd got

608
01:09:53,920 --> 01:09:57,600
 that question right because I knew that it was conflicting, but I knew that it was pulling

609
01:09:57,600 --> 01:10:00,460
 out this book. That's just the way it was even worded because I had studied that much

610
01:10:00,460 --> 01:10:04,940
 and knew the language exactly. I even kept a folder over the conflicts, the quantum but

611
01:10:04,940 --> 01:10:09,000
 free conflicted here as well. I knew the information. I had somebody else come in the department

612
01:10:09,000 --> 01:10:13,280
 that didn't know that that and they argued, but in this book, it says it also it's similar

613
01:10:13,280 --> 01:10:18,360
 to it. The commission ruled in favor gave that person a point. I didn't lose no ground,

614
01:10:18,360 --> 01:10:22,280
 but I didn't gain no ground. That person gained a point on me about honestly not knowing the

615
01:10:22,280 --> 01:10:25,520
 material as well as what I did it. Now that's just one scenario out of a hundred, but I'm

616
01:10:25,520 --> 01:10:29,400
 just trying to say what you don't see on the other side is people do put the time in and

617
01:10:29,400 --> 01:10:33,240
 study. I mean, we try to get these lists approved as quick as possible, so we give them up to

618
01:10:33,240 --> 01:10:38,280
 six months to study. This isn't nothing in common. Some of the departments up in the

619
01:10:38,280 --> 01:10:43,280
 Northeast Coast as well, they only give exams every two years. So these people take a year

620
01:10:43,280 --> 01:10:47,440
 to study because it's that important because a promotion is based off a hundred question

621
01:10:47,440 --> 01:10:52,720
 test. It's that important to them. So I see both sides, but I want you to see both sides

622
01:10:52,720 --> 01:10:56,400
 also that the people that put time into it, they can take the test. They can show you

623
01:10:56,400 --> 01:11:00,080
 the difference as well, and they appreciate something that is more strict, that's more

624
01:11:00,080 --> 01:11:06,880
 objective as well versus kind of open it up to what somebody is a good arguer that can

625
01:11:06,880 --> 01:11:10,280
 bring in these different components as well. Now they're kind of bringing validity to their

626
01:11:10,280 --> 01:11:15,040
 appeal whenever this person hears it, but I studied, I knew it. I didn't have to do that

627
01:11:15,040 --> 01:11:20,920
 work after the appeal. I'll put the work on the front. So just a little inset.

628
01:11:20,920 --> 01:11:24,240
 I think some of these officers, too, I think they learn more from the appeals than they

629
01:11:24,240 --> 01:11:27,280
 did from studying initially for the first test.

630
01:11:27,280 --> 01:11:32,560
 Some do more effort into the appeals than actually studying. Yes, you are correct.

631
01:11:32,560 --> 01:11:37,980
 And let me just remind everyone that in the police meeting confer, they did include language

632
01:11:37,980 --> 01:11:43,840
 that if there was a reference where the answer to the question is coming from, based on the

633
01:11:43,840 --> 01:11:49,920
 meeting confer agreement, you can't consider, the commission cannot consider information

634
01:11:49,920 --> 01:11:56,280
 outside of that reference quoted material. Okay, but reference quoted material, is it

635
01:11:56,280 --> 01:12:00,160
 that one sentence, or is it the book? What's the reference material?

636
01:12:00,160 --> 01:12:05,040
 It's not the book. Let's say, for example, and I don't know, I'm gonna make up something.

637
01:12:05,040 --> 01:12:10,360
 Let's say, for example, you had a book called Police Responsibility, and at the top of that

638
01:12:10,360 --> 01:12:17,760
 question, they reference that's on page 10, paragraph three. Well, when that person appealed

639
01:12:17,760 --> 01:12:21,880
 and you're considering their appeal, based on the language that I understand from the

640
01:12:21,880 --> 01:12:28,640
 police meeting confer agreement, you will be limited to that reference section. If the

641
01:12:28,640 --> 01:12:36,280
 person said, well, I found another answer in book two, or even in the same book, but

642
01:12:36,280 --> 01:12:42,520
 it's on a different page number, then that was referenced. Based on the meeting confer

643
01:12:42,520 --> 01:12:47,360
 agreement, you would still be limited. That's my understanding.

644
01:12:47,360 --> 01:12:53,000
 So my question is, on those, then why even bring them to the commission? Those shouldn't

645
01:12:53,000 --> 01:12:56,080
 even be allowed, questions shouldn't even be allowed to be appealed because you're already

646
01:12:56,080 --> 01:13:01,880
 locked in, you already know the answer. Yeah, I think that's part of the question,

647
01:13:01,880 --> 01:13:11,560
 because then if that's the case, then the commission serves no function.

648
01:13:11,560 --> 01:13:19,360
 And that goes back to us limiting our officers and our fighters to memorize, which is great.

649
01:13:19,360 --> 01:13:22,720
 They need to memorize certain guidelines and protocols, but I need somebody that's gonna

650
01:13:22,720 --> 01:13:27,040
 have critical thinking skills on something that they've never seen before, but that they

651
01:13:27,040 --> 01:13:31,760
 can draw from all these different experiences and they can make a solid argument and follow

652
01:13:31,760 --> 01:13:35,760
 through. Like, that's kind of scary that all we're asking them to do to be promoted is

653
01:13:35,760 --> 01:13:41,400
 to memorize. That's actually state 143 statute. That's what

654
01:13:41,400 --> 01:13:45,400
 we're having followed, though, because we don't have exceptions on our promotional process.

655
01:13:45,400 --> 01:13:53,160
 Yeah, but like you said, you modified them for entry. So why not be consistent and follow

656
01:13:53,160 --> 01:14:00,280
 it for entry and promotional across both departments, not just police does this and fire does this.

657
01:14:00,280 --> 01:14:06,280
 Chief Skipper is trying to get in the word, and I'd like to get in the word. So go ahead,

658
01:14:06,280 --> 01:14:10,080
 Councilman. No, I'll follow you.

659
01:14:10,080 --> 01:14:16,640
 I was just gonna say that along Chief Hedges' personal experience, you know, we study those

660
01:14:16,640 --> 01:14:21,960
 books as hard as we possibly can to top out that list. And anytime the commission rules

661
01:14:21,960 --> 01:14:28,080
 against a question or they rule in favor for an appellant, that affects the person who

662
01:14:28,080 --> 01:14:35,520
 topped out that list. We all go in that test with the same ability to score a hundred or

663
01:14:35,520 --> 01:14:41,240
 not score a hundred. You know what I'm saying? So afterwards, when we go in for our appeals,

664
01:14:41,240 --> 01:14:46,760
 they have almost as much time as they want sitting down at a desk reading and looking

665
01:14:46,760 --> 01:14:53,080
 over every word of those books to determine if they have an argument or a solid appeal.

666
01:14:53,080 --> 01:14:58,200
 So it's always after the fact, and it's not the actual knowledge that they presented in

667
01:14:58,200 --> 01:15:05,160
 that testing room. So they're taking a lot of time to scour books to try to find every

668
01:15:05,160 --> 01:15:11,760
 little argument they possibly can find to try to sway three commissioners' opinion about

669
01:15:11,760 --> 01:15:16,840
 a test question, as opposed to the fact that they just got the question wrong.

670
01:15:16,840 --> 01:15:25,880
 Well, my comment is a selfish one. My comment is selfish. While I want to be a good commissioner,

671
01:15:25,880 --> 01:15:31,880
 I don't want to spend as much time as the test takers do to learn all that material.

672
01:15:31,880 --> 01:15:37,440
 And if we expand the parameters, I've got to spend more time, so I'm making sure that

673
01:15:37,440 --> 01:15:43,040
 the answers are correct. So I'm torn between wanting to do a good job and not wanting to

674
01:15:43,040 --> 01:15:49,600
 spend as much time studying as they do. So this is my dilemma. I mean, this last group

675
01:15:49,600 --> 01:15:56,400
 of exam, it took a lot of time to prepare so we can come into the test. So if we expand

676
01:15:56,400 --> 01:16:02,480
 the opportunities for answers, it's expanding more time. And I understand we want critical

677
01:16:02,480 --> 01:16:10,200
 thinking. I have a difficulty with just a one-liner. But at the same time, I'm not

678
01:16:10,200 --> 01:16:18,360
 sure I'm committed to doubling or tripling my time of investment in reading all that

679
01:16:18,360 --> 01:16:24,520
 material. So that's my dilemma. Thank you for letting me in.

680
01:16:24,520 --> 01:16:30,880
 To kind of get us, I mean, I think this is an important discussion that needs to happen.

681
01:16:30,880 --> 01:16:40,960
 Because right now, I'm not sure there is an answer that's going to make everybody happy.

682
01:16:40,960 --> 01:16:53,760
 My question, to get us kind of back on task for the local rules, is since we can't come

683
01:16:53,760 --> 01:17:03,720
 up with a good definition of what the source material is at this point, can we leave the

684
01:17:03,720 --> 01:17:10,640
 language and have further discussions on this? It would seem to me that any further discussions

685
01:17:10,640 --> 01:17:21,040
 are also going to have to be in coordination with meet and confer. Because some of these

686
01:17:21,040 --> 01:17:30,800
 specifications are meet and confer specifications. I'm looking at your contract, the police contract

687
01:17:30,800 --> 01:17:38,480
 that uses source materials. I think it's perfectly fine for the commission to go ahead and approve

688
01:17:38,480 --> 01:17:43,960
 the rules. And then you can still revisit that one if that's unclear to you. You don't have

689
01:17:43,960 --> 01:17:55,080
 to hold up approving everything just for delaying it if you don't want to.

690
01:17:55,080 --> 01:18:01,680
 Thank you. That's what I'm trying to say, is that can we live with the language that

691
01:18:01,680 --> 01:18:08,240
 says the source material and then try to go dig into that a little later in another meeting

692
01:18:08,240 --> 01:18:16,480
 and try that again, because that's also going to mean fire, police, meet and confer will

693
01:18:16,480 --> 01:18:24,520
 have to all be on the same page on any changes that we make on that. So can we for purposes

694
01:18:24,520 --> 01:18:31,680
 of this document, can we just live with quoted source material?

695
01:18:31,680 --> 01:18:42,120
 I could live with source material if you take off the word quoted. You could say referenced.

696
01:18:42,120 --> 01:18:46,320
 You could say referenced to say that it's referenced in reference to those particular

697
01:18:46,320 --> 01:18:52,560
 questions. All right. Where's that language, Stephanie?

698
01:18:52,560 --> 01:19:04,120
 It's under rule number 34 and it is the one, two, three, or fourth highlighted paragraph

699
01:19:04,120 --> 01:19:21,320
 in yellow. I'll read it again for the record. And keep

700
01:19:21,320 --> 01:19:31,120
 in mind this language is being included in here again, because if you look at article

701
01:19:31,120 --> 01:19:40,640
 four, well, hold on, what's it, article four, article five, section one B of the police

702
01:19:40,640 --> 01:19:49,000
 meet and confer agreement, this is the language that was included in the agreement. In regard

703
01:19:49,000 --> 01:20:00,800
 to fire and their meet and confer agreement, they didn't make any changes. Let me double

704
01:20:00,800 --> 01:20:15,240
 check. Okay. Yeah. Fire Dia II. So I don't know, I mean, Michael, you can correct me

705
01:20:15,240 --> 01:20:21,640
 if I'm wrong. Okay. In the fire meeting confer agreement,

706
01:20:21,640 --> 01:20:32,600
 they referenced that under section seven of article five. And they have appeals from the

707
01:20:32,600 --> 01:20:38,040
 commission under section 143.034 of the Texas local government code should be limited to

708
01:20:38,040 --> 01:20:46,320
 quoted source material attributable to the reference examination question. Then if you

709
01:20:46,320 --> 01:20:54,120
 go to police meet and confer agreement, and theirs is under article five, one B under

710
01:20:54,120 --> 01:21:04,720
 limited scope of appeal, they have that same language. So in actuality commissioners, we

711
01:21:04,720 --> 01:21:12,960
 can't say anything. No matter the contract, Stephanie said the contract is what controls

712
01:21:12,960 --> 01:21:18,360
 even if you took out the word quoted from your civil service rules, it's really going

713
01:21:18,360 --> 01:21:23,840
 to be meaningless in a sense because the contract supersedes your local rule. And we will revert

714
01:21:23,840 --> 01:21:29,600
 back to the contract. Right. And why do we then why do we have this

715
01:21:29,600 --> 01:21:36,240
 department of rules where you say that the commission are required to approve department

716
01:21:36,240 --> 01:21:40,000
 of rules, but no such department of rules should be in conflict with the provisions

717
01:21:40,000 --> 01:21:45,080
 of these civil service rules. Is that supposed to be kind of like a checks and balance or

718
01:21:45,080 --> 01:21:48,960
 so or you're saying that it doesn't matter that really any rules that we adopt have to

719
01:21:48,960 --> 01:21:54,720
 just fall under what has already been outlined. It's like this is supposed to be like we work

720
01:21:54,720 --> 01:21:58,560
 together. Like what you're saying, you just already decided your rules and we have to

721
01:21:58,560 --> 01:22:05,180
 follow under those like we can't even question when I read your rules. When I got here, the

722
01:22:05,180 --> 01:22:10,480
 part you just talked about department rules kind of implied, excuse me, that the needed

723
01:22:10,480 --> 01:22:15,880
 to approve the police department's internal rules. And I suggest to just clarifying that

724
01:22:15,880 --> 01:22:21,480
 the commission doesn't have to do that. The meeting confer process does give the association

725
01:22:21,480 --> 01:22:28,880
 and the city the ability to override state law. And that's what they did. And the police

726
01:22:28,880 --> 01:22:35,860
 department doesn't have the authority to override the civil service rules, including your rules.

727
01:22:35,860 --> 01:22:40,280
 So if you're saying that you're not you're not when I'm understanding what you're saying

728
01:22:40,280 --> 01:22:44,600
 is that we don't even have a elected stand on when we're bringing these things up because

729
01:22:44,600 --> 01:22:48,080
 you're because it's already under it's already been adopted in the language that you already

730
01:22:48,080 --> 01:22:53,720
 have. I just need to know like where you are because if we're making arguments that really

731
01:22:53,720 --> 01:22:58,400
 don't need to be made, then then I mean, that's the way it is. And we probably have to appeal

732
01:22:58,400 --> 01:23:06,520
 to a different organization or the state or whatever, you know, the place to make those

733
01:23:06,520 --> 01:23:13,360
 arguments. I still think probably the the commission's role isn't to interpret the meet

734
01:23:13,360 --> 01:23:19,760
 and confer agreement. But I think it's probably still going to come back to you to end up

735
01:23:19,760 --> 01:23:25,440
 making having this discussion about what is the appropriate source material, there's probably

736
01:23:25,440 --> 01:23:31,240
 really no way to get around that. But I agree with Stephanie, I think ultimately, in the

737
01:23:31,240 --> 01:23:37,820
 police contract, it's it has a specific reference of, you know, the quoted material, however

738
01:23:37,820 --> 01:23:43,560
 the language was and I think ultimately, that's probably what's going to control. But ultimately,

739
01:23:43,560 --> 01:23:48,200
 I think the commission if you don't think the question was fair, it's confusing. I do

740
01:23:48,200 --> 01:23:53,760
 think you have the ultimate authority to rule whether it's a valid question or not. Ultimately,

741
01:23:53,760 --> 01:23:58,540
 I think it's going to come down to you folks. Well, the only the only authority we would

742
01:23:58,540 --> 01:24:06,240
 have is to accept all the answers. We can't throw a question out anymore. Yeah, I think

743
01:24:06,240 --> 01:24:15,460
 the contracts specify that you can send a message to the representative to say that's

744
01:24:15,460 --> 01:24:22,400
 a really bad question. How about we never see that one again. But as far as scores,

745
01:24:22,400 --> 01:24:33,600
 we cannot throw out a question. So regards, that's based on the fire meeting confer. I

746
01:24:33,600 --> 01:24:41,000
 think for police, you're you're able to still do that. I don't think they made any modifications

747
01:24:41,000 --> 01:24:46,160
 in that regard. Yeah. Well, one thing to do might be when they're constructing the test

748
01:24:46,160 --> 01:24:53,160
 to ensure that internally, there's no questions that in one one page has one answer and later

749
01:24:53,160 --> 01:24:57,840
 in the book, there may be something conflicting. So maybe the test construction can try to

750
01:24:57,840 --> 01:25:10,280
 avoid this situation arising. So I think we just need to proceed. I think we've made a

751
01:25:10,280 --> 01:25:18,480
 point, but I don't know that we've made any any headway. That's that's we're sort of stuck

752
01:25:18,480 --> 01:25:28,920
 with this. Can we agree that we still need to work on this later and move on? I think

753
01:25:28,920 --> 01:25:33,160
 we can we can agree that we can talk about it. But again, it's going to come down if

754
01:25:33,160 --> 01:25:39,520
 the decision is going to be made out of our hands. It's going to be made between the associations

755
01:25:39,520 --> 01:25:49,860
 and the city. So yes, I think we have to move on because we can't answer it and we can't

756
01:25:49,860 --> 01:25:59,000
 change it. But other than that, we can talk about it. I think I think I think Mr. Chair,

757
01:25:59,000 --> 01:26:06,120
 that there is a sense of frustration that either we're going to be using our our intellect

758
01:26:06,120 --> 01:26:11,440
 or we're going to just use a one liner. And I think we need to we need the three of us

759
01:26:11,440 --> 01:26:15,720
 as commissioners, we need to get happy with what we're doing. Or we need to do something

760
01:26:15,720 --> 01:26:22,320
 else. So I think that's the conversation. I would not agree with you any I couldn't

761
01:26:22,320 --> 01:26:27,000
 agree more with you. Thank you. If we use our intellect, we probably don't need to be

762
01:26:27,000 --> 01:26:39,920
 on this commission. Right, you just have to memorize the answer. So I wouldn't say that.

763
01:26:39,920 --> 01:26:51,700
 So all right, well, I think we've made a point, hopefully, Jason and whoever police Chief

764
01:26:51,700 --> 01:26:58,920
 Skipper, Jason, those guys, you know what, you know, our frustration at this point. And

765
01:26:58,920 --> 01:27:04,400
 yeah, Mr. Chairman, I do. I mean, if, if you'd allow me just a minute, I mean, I can at least

766
01:27:04,400 --> 01:27:11,760
 give you my two cents from the from our association perspective, because I understand your frustration.

767
01:27:11,760 --> 01:27:17,320
 And I know the intent was not to take away any of the authority that the commissioners

768
01:27:17,320 --> 01:27:23,680
 you as commissioners have. Really, from from my perspective, it was to limit questions

769
01:27:23,680 --> 01:27:30,640
 to when I say quoted source material, is that particular book, as opposed to a particular

770
01:27:30,640 --> 01:27:36,440
 page in a book, and if there's conflict in that book, I would argue that's a valid appeal.

771
01:27:36,440 --> 01:27:42,960
 The part about throwing out a about being able to throw out a question over the years

772
01:27:42,960 --> 01:27:48,640
 and I know, Mr. Chairman, you've been involved in this for some time, as Mr. Baines, and

773
01:27:48,640 --> 01:27:56,600
 when you start throwing out questions, it adversely impacts a candidate got it correct.

774
01:27:56,600 --> 01:28:02,880
 And that's where that's kind of where our your discussion was. So even though you got

775
01:28:02,880 --> 01:28:07,960
 it correct, you shouldn't be adversely impacted. Now you started looking at fractions of points.

776
01:28:07,960 --> 01:28:11,680
 And that was kind of a big driving force behind it. It was a bad question. Then you accept

777
01:28:11,680 --> 01:28:16,800
 all answers, you move on, everybody gets credit, and it doesn't adversely impact someone or

778
01:28:16,800 --> 01:28:24,280
 benefit one over another for a bad question. Yeah, that was chairman. No, I understand.

779
01:28:24,280 --> 01:28:32,120
 And over the years that throwing out the question is the last possible alternative, simply because

780
01:28:32,120 --> 01:28:42,040
 it does, ever how small it does impact the overall value of every other question. And

781
01:28:42,040 --> 01:28:49,640
 we don't want to do that. But sometimes they send us some really bad questions. But I appreciate

782
01:28:49,640 --> 01:28:56,440
 it, Jason. Thank you very much for that input. Yes, sir. So I think we need to move on with

783
01:28:56,440 --> 01:29:04,400
 this and leave it as it as it is quoted from the meet and confer. And then we can decide.

784
01:29:04,400 --> 01:29:14,880
 I mean, I, I can live with the, the interpretation that it's from the quoted book. And the book

785
01:29:14,880 --> 01:29:23,400
 must be from the list. If that's if that's what we can live with, and I'm fine with that.

786
01:29:23,400 --> 01:29:30,560
 It's quoted from the book. And the book is on the list. So we can go to the internet

787
01:29:30,560 --> 01:29:36,720
 and find 17 other alternatives that are not in the books. But it could be it could be

788
01:29:36,720 --> 01:29:41,880
 a question that's in another part of the book, a conflict that's in another part of the book.

789
01:29:41,880 --> 01:29:46,960
 And we can rule on that, whether that's a valid appeal or not, then we have a rule,

790
01:29:46,960 --> 01:29:53,680
 then we have a then we have a role to play. But anyway, we've got to move on. So Michael,

791
01:29:53,680 --> 01:30:00,960
 can you confirm what the based on the language that's in the meeting confer agreement? The

792
01:30:00,960 --> 01:30:05,720
 commission's job isn't to interpret the contract, they can apply the contract. And let me just

793
01:30:05,720 --> 01:30:12,400
 say this. If there's any if the contract language is unclear, the chiefs can always sit down

794
01:30:12,400 --> 01:30:17,600
 with the association presidents and try to clarify that I think that may be appropriate

795
01:30:17,600 --> 01:30:22,560
 for a memorandum of understanding to avoid this. And I can talk to the chiefs after we're

796
01:30:22,560 --> 01:30:28,600
 done, maybe trying to do that to avoid exactly problem you're talking about.

797
01:30:28,600 --> 01:30:34,880
 I think we've met over the last this last set of appeals. There was a great deal of

798
01:30:34,880 --> 01:30:43,980
 frustration among the commissioners. And simply for this, this reason, if we can come to some

799
01:30:43,980 --> 01:30:49,280
 understanding clarification of that, that would be greatly appreciated. And we can move

800
01:30:49,280 --> 01:30:52,560
 on. So can we move on in the in the

801
01:30:52,560 --> 01:30:58,800
 May I just say, may I just say that I just want to say this, just to make sure that everybody

802
01:30:58,800 --> 01:31:04,600
 understands the frustration came because we want to do right by the firefighters. It's

803
01:31:04,600 --> 01:31:09,120
 not the frustration that for any other reason, I want to be consistent and I want to be right

804
01:31:09,120 --> 01:31:14,520
 by each of these people that are coming forward to look to us for for clarification or for

805
01:31:14,520 --> 01:31:19,120
 an answer. So that's where the frustration comes from. It's not from anything else, at

806
01:31:19,120 --> 01:31:23,920
 least for me. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Okay.

807
01:31:23,920 --> 01:31:31,400
 All right. So just the confirmation is the commissioners are you all in agreement with

808
01:31:31,400 --> 01:31:38,520
 keeping the language as is for now? I'm okay with that. Yes.

809
01:31:38,520 --> 01:31:44,320
 Okay. I'm moving on to the second, well, the next paragraph where it says promotional examination

810
01:31:44,320 --> 01:31:50,360
 multiple choice questions appeal to the civil service. You'll be sustained or overruled

811
01:31:50,360 --> 01:31:57,560
 and in actuality or overruled should be crossed out are thrown out that should be crossed

812
01:31:57,560 --> 01:32:04,080
 out as well. And the new language for that to replace those terms is disqualified by

813
01:32:04,080 --> 01:32:11,920
 a ruling issued by the civil service commission. Say that one more time, Stephanie. I'm sorry.

814
01:32:11,920 --> 01:32:15,380
 I'm just going to read the new language as it should be because it's still had overruled

815
01:32:15,380 --> 01:32:20,140
 in here and that shouldn't have been in there. Okay, the promotional examination multiple

816
01:32:20,140 --> 01:32:25,720
 choice questions appeal to the civil service commission will be sustained or disqualified

817
01:32:25,720 --> 01:32:34,920
 by a ruling issued by the civil service commission. So the word overruled should not be in there?

818
01:32:34,920 --> 01:32:47,280
 No. And this is only in regard to, you know what, I'm sorry, that's an error on my part.

819
01:32:47,280 --> 01:32:52,000
 Throw them out. That language is going to stay the same because

820
01:32:52,000 --> 01:33:04,720
 it's only applicable to, it's only applicable to the police.

821
01:33:04,720 --> 01:33:11,160
 We don't disqualify in throwing out a question and disqualifying a question the same thing.

822
01:33:11,160 --> 01:33:17,800
 We accept other answers. In consultation with, in consultation with

823
01:33:17,800 --> 01:33:26,960
 the legal counsel, using the term thrown out, just trying to come up with a better term

824
01:33:26,960 --> 01:33:31,160
 and disqualified, disqualifying a question was a term that was suggested.

825
01:33:31,160 --> 01:33:37,480
 Okay, because you're saying disqualified for on Article 3.

826
01:33:37,480 --> 01:33:43,200
 Just to replace the term of being thrown out, the question being thrown out.

827
01:33:43,200 --> 01:33:46,600
 Okay. Okay, let me go back because I think I probably

828
01:33:46,600 --> 01:33:54,320
 have made some confusion here. We're going to keep the language as is, that's

829
01:33:54,320 --> 01:34:00,660
 in red because, and I'm just going to add language that this is applicable for police

830
01:34:00,660 --> 01:34:06,320
 because what changed here is that with the fire and meat confer agreement that was approved

831
01:34:06,320 --> 01:34:13,280
 by city council September 24th, it states they had added language that all test questions

832
01:34:13,280 --> 01:34:20,160
 will be graded with either one best answer correct, multiple answers correct or all answers

833
01:34:20,160 --> 01:34:29,120
 graded correctly, which means a question cannot be thrown out for a fire appeal, but for police

834
01:34:29,120 --> 01:34:36,480
 they didn't make any changes in that regard. So based on that, you would have the ability

835
01:34:36,480 --> 01:34:44,920
 to still throw out a question for an appeal question. Does that make sense?

836
01:34:44,920 --> 01:34:51,880
 There's two standards there. Right, yes, one standard for fire, one standard

837
01:34:51,880 --> 01:34:57,360
 for police. Exactly. And so I will remind you as we do

838
01:34:57,360 --> 01:35:04,200
 appeals, I will remind you sort of like a tip sheet that that standard is applicable

839
01:35:04,200 --> 01:35:07,960
 depending on what kind of appeals that you're reviewing, whether it's police or whether

840
01:35:07,960 --> 01:35:12,760
 it's fire. So I'm going to, that language in red will stay the same, but I'll put some

841
01:35:12,760 --> 01:35:20,520
 language in parenthesis only applicable for police and then the language below that starts

842
01:35:20,520 --> 01:35:25,800
 off with the fire and meat confer agreement approved by city council, that language would

843
01:35:25,800 --> 01:35:36,520
 stay the same. We're trying to get away from that. It's something that fire has expressly

844
01:35:36,520 --> 01:35:42,760
 stated now. I'm not sure I'll have to ask Chief Dixon in terms of what the police department

845
01:35:42,760 --> 01:35:50,000
 stance is on that. Critical for fire because they included that language in the meeting

846
01:35:50,000 --> 01:35:57,440
 confer agreement. Chief, do you have any comments you might want to add regarding that particular

847
01:35:57,440 --> 01:36:04,400
 provision about throwing out a question? Chief Dixon or Chief Hedges, either one of you?

848
01:36:04,400 --> 01:36:09,600
 No, I don't. I think the association is going to have to be brought into it, but I personally

849
01:36:09,600 --> 01:36:14,000
 don't have any problems with it. I think it should be within the commission's program.

850
01:36:14,000 --> 01:36:20,680
 I guess the question wasn't just for this particular question. I thought along the lines,

851
01:36:20,680 --> 01:36:27,600
 I thought the goal was to get both to kind of be on the same page, both meeting confer

852
01:36:27,600 --> 01:36:32,560
 for fire and police. Yeah, for us to get on the same page, it would take both associations

853
01:36:32,560 --> 01:36:36,960
 agreeing to the language for both. So that would be something we'd have to bring up in

854
01:36:36,960 --> 01:36:48,480
 our next negotiating period. Okay. I mean, other than the fact that we can't, and again,

855
01:36:48,480 --> 01:36:58,300
 we've tried not to throw out a question, disqualify a question as a matter of course anyway, except

856
01:36:58,300 --> 01:37:05,580
 all four answers as being correct question and then send the message that that's a really

857
01:37:05,580 --> 01:37:15,400
 bad question, kind of a thing. So, but it might not be a bad idea to do this again to

858
01:37:15,400 --> 01:37:29,320
 look at that language on that to make sure that is parallel. Okay. All right. Any additional

859
01:37:29,320 --> 01:37:43,480
 questions about section 34? I move on to section 30, number 35, rule 35 and 36. And in this

860
01:37:43,480 --> 01:37:48,280
 particular, in these sections, it was just clarification added more so than anything

861
01:37:48,280 --> 01:37:54,880
 for rule number 35 language was added if adopted by the commission. And that's in regard to

862
01:37:54,880 --> 01:38:01,360
 the director show provides the absentee balloting in an alternate promotional system in a police

863
01:38:01,360 --> 01:38:08,640
 department. And then rule number 36 corrected that to include promotional appointments for

864
01:38:08,640 --> 01:38:15,440
 the ranks of deputy chief and assistant chief in accordance with article six of the meeting

865
01:38:15,440 --> 01:38:22,880
 conferring agreement. Stephanie, I have a question, please. Yes. When you says if adopted

866
01:38:22,880 --> 01:38:29,200
 by the commission, is that you or is that us? No, that would be you all, actually. Thank

867
01:38:29,200 --> 01:38:45,120
 you. All right. Now moving on to the next one. Well, let me let me ask one real quick.

868
01:38:45,120 --> 01:38:52,860
 It's probably probably to the chief. So we haven't had police appeals recently. So it

869
01:38:52,860 --> 01:39:00,880
 looks like you've kind of restructured your, your, your rankings. Sergeant and lieutenant

870
01:39:00,880 --> 01:39:09,320
 were going to deputy chief and assistant chief. Is that what I'm reading in this? Right. We

871
01:39:09,320 --> 01:39:14,060
 haven't restructured it. Those were actually made before I got here. They added the assistant

872
01:39:14,060 --> 01:39:19,720
 chief and deputy chief ranks, or they kind of restructured how those lay out. But those

873
01:39:19,720 --> 01:39:26,960
 were established, I believe in like August of 18. So that's, those are the new titles

874
01:39:26,960 --> 01:39:32,360
 in lieu of sergeant and lieutenant, or are there no sergeant and lieutenant. So it goes

875
01:39:32,360 --> 01:39:39,960
 from officer to sergeant to lieutenant to deputy chief, assistant chief, and then chief

876
01:39:39,960 --> 01:39:51,040
 of police. Okay. So there are four, four levels. Correct. Okay. That didn't have any, I just,

877
01:39:51,040 --> 01:40:00,880
 that was from my own edification. Okay. We're next, we're on rule 52 regarding disciplinary

878
01:40:00,880 --> 01:40:08,680
 suspensions. And this was just clarification. If you look at number section, subsection

879
01:40:08,680 --> 01:40:13,560
 two, the department head may not suspend an employee based upon an act that occurred more

880
01:40:13,560 --> 01:40:20,840
 than 180 days. We remove or crossed out, deleted the in the past language and just replaced

881
01:40:20,840 --> 01:40:28,000
 it with prior to the date the employee suspended, as self as may be provided for uncertain criminal

882
01:40:28,000 --> 01:40:33,840
 investigation. So we just clarified the language a little bit there. Then if you go to subsection

883
01:40:33,840 --> 01:40:41,760
 three of that same rule, it state, we changed the language to state that with the police

884
01:40:41,760 --> 01:40:48,200
 and fire meeting confer agreements approved by the city council on September 22nd, 2009,

885
01:40:48,200 --> 01:40:51,280
 the written statement does not have to be filed with the commission unless the police

886
01:40:51,280 --> 01:40:57,160
 officer or the firefighter appeals the written statement to the commission. And that's referenced

887
01:40:57,160 --> 01:41:05,000
 the article nine, section one of the fire agreement and article seven and section three

888
01:41:05,000 --> 01:41:10,260
 of the police agreement. The language that was added is if the police officer or firefighter

889
01:41:10,260 --> 01:41:15,640
 appeals, the written statement must be filed with the commission within 120 hours of the

890
01:41:15,640 --> 01:41:19,800
 filing of the notice of appeal. Subsequent agreements, including the most current agreements

891
01:41:19,800 --> 01:41:28,920
 approved on September 24th, 2019 for both police and fire continue to allow. Okay, any

892
01:41:28,920 --> 01:41:29,920
 questions?

893
01:41:29,920 --> 01:41:39,640
 - I have a question on just on that B, number two, the department head may not suspend an

894
01:41:39,640 --> 01:41:45,960
 employee based upon an act that occurred more than 180 days prior to the date the employee

895
01:41:45,960 --> 01:41:50,960
 is suspended. Wouldn't it be prior to the date of the act?

896
01:41:50,960 --> 01:42:01,920
 - That's the language from the statute. So if you suspended me today, then it can't be

897
01:42:01,920 --> 01:42:08,200
 for an act that occurred more than 180 days before. So I just put that in just trying

898
01:42:08,200 --> 01:42:12,480
 to, that's what the statute says prior to the date the employee is suspended. So.

899
01:42:12,480 --> 01:42:17,920
 - Okay, so the department head may not suspend an employee based upon an act that occurred

900
01:42:17,920 --> 01:42:22,960
 more than 180 days prior to the date the employee is suspended.

901
01:42:22,960 --> 01:42:31,960
 - It kind of looks backwards. If I'm suspended today, it's 180 days ago. Yeah, the statute

902
01:42:31,960 --> 01:42:34,400
 is kind of confusing itself.

903
01:42:34,400 --> 01:42:43,000
 - All right, any other questions about that rule? Okay, then we go to rule number 53.

904
01:42:43,000 --> 01:42:48,180
 We're going to appeal of the disciplinary suspension. If you go under section number

905
01:42:48,180 --> 01:42:54,040
 three, we added language, only temporary and definite suspensions and voluntary demotions

906
01:42:54,040 --> 01:43:00,080
 may be appealed to the commission. Employee dissatisfaction resulting from a transfer

907
01:43:00,080 --> 01:43:05,320
 or reassignment of duties or a policy decision in of itself are not appealable. So we just

908
01:43:05,320 --> 01:43:16,660
 sort of clarified what an officer or an employee can appeal and what they cannot appeal. Okay.

909
01:43:16,660 --> 01:43:31,160
 And rule number 53, subsection I3, we made changes in that regard. And it's under number,

910
01:43:31,160 --> 01:43:59,260
 oh, let me refer, I don't know if I get, let me put that right.

911
01:43:59,260 --> 01:44:08,180
 Okay. In regard to rule number 53, subsection I3, the language is only for number three,

912
01:44:08,180 --> 01:44:14,660
 it says only temporary and definite suspensions, voluntary demotions may be appealed. Sorry,

913
01:44:14,660 --> 01:44:29,620
 I don't know what that one, you know, 54. Okay, here it is. For I3 under rule number

914
01:44:29,620 --> 01:44:36,300
 53, the new language is under section three of that, employees and their legal representative.

915
01:44:36,300 --> 01:44:41,500
 So we added the term legal to clarify that language as to what representatives may obtain

916
01:44:41,500 --> 01:44:51,340
 a copy of the personnel file. We included the language that it's the city's personnel

917
01:44:51,340 --> 01:44:58,500
 file on the employee. I'm going to start back over reading this entire paragraph. Employees

918
01:44:58,500 --> 01:45:02,820
 and their legal representatives may obtain copies of matters contained in the city's

919
01:45:02,820 --> 01:45:08,940
 personnel file on the employee, which may include disciplinary records. The employee

920
01:45:08,940 --> 01:45:15,980
 may be asked to sign a release form as a demonstration of the employee's consent that their legal

921
01:45:15,980 --> 01:45:22,580
 representative shall receive a copy of such records, even if the records are confidential

922
01:45:22,580 --> 01:45:29,780
 in nature. So that's the new language. And then we change number four also, and basically

923
01:45:29,780 --> 01:45:36,100
 in that language it talks about a subpoena adduces ticum. And basically we included language

924
01:45:36,100 --> 01:45:42,100
 that requests for subpoenas must be filed on the 11th day prior to the scheduled hearing

925
01:45:42,100 --> 01:45:47,500
 in order to be processed in a timely manner. Any questions?

926
01:45:47,500 --> 01:45:53,460
 I just want to tell you why we changed that. The statute says firefighter police officer

927
01:45:53,460 --> 01:46:00,260
 must make the request before the 10th day, before the date the commission hearing is

928
01:46:00,260 --> 01:46:05,860
 held. That's real confusing. In Austin, we changed that to make it clear the day before

929
01:46:05,860 --> 01:46:18,380
 the 10th day before is really the 11th day. So we were just trying to make that clear.

930
01:46:18,380 --> 01:46:45,700
 All right. And then the next rule that was changed is rule number 53 and eight. The revised

931
01:46:45,700 --> 01:46:53,380
 language is a copy of the department's disciplinary action, a copy of the employee's request for

932
01:46:53,380 --> 01:46:58,140
 appeal and the record of the proceedings, a copy of the exhibits submitted together with

933
01:46:58,140 --> 01:47:06,340
 a copy of the final decision shall be filed in the commission records. Any questions about

934
01:47:06,340 --> 01:47:26,700
 that one? All right. Moving along. And if we look at rule number 56 in regard to procedures

935
01:47:26,700 --> 01:47:38,140
 after felony indictment or misdemeanor complaint, we modified the language some. The new language

936
01:47:38,140 --> 01:47:43,700
 has a conviction or deferred adjudication of a felony may result in the firefighter or

937
01:47:43,700 --> 01:47:50,420
 police officer being terminated from his or her position. There was language regarding

938
01:47:50,420 --> 01:47:56,140
 no hearing before the civil service commission or independent hearing examiner will be provided.

939
01:47:56,140 --> 01:48:04,740
 That language was deleted. Yeah, but you went from saying a felony shall result in the firefighter

940
01:48:04,740 --> 01:48:09,660
 being terminated or police being terminated. It should be may result, may result. Sorry

941
01:48:09,660 --> 01:48:14,080
 about that. I might have misread it. It should be. No, yeah, that's what I'm saying in the

942
01:48:14,080 --> 01:48:17,620
 original language. It said that they would be in the new language. You're saying they

943
01:48:17,620 --> 01:48:24,300
 may be. Yes. But you're saying that for felony and misdemeanor, are you saying that for felonies?

944
01:48:24,300 --> 01:48:33,020
 Yeah. And the only reason the language, more than likely, if they're actually convicted

945
01:48:33,020 --> 01:48:39,300
 and there's enough evidence, then more than likely the firefighter or police officer would

946
01:48:39,300 --> 01:48:49,120
 likely be terminated. But as a civil service employee, they have a right to a hearing.

947
01:48:49,120 --> 01:48:56,060
 It's just a due process, right? That's one of the purposes of being civil service protected.

948
01:48:56,060 --> 01:49:03,540
 Even if it's an action that is, you know, obviously a felony is a very serious offense.

949
01:49:03,540 --> 01:49:10,260
 So if a person is convicted, you know, they can still request a hearing. So hearing in

950
01:49:10,260 --> 01:49:17,780
 front of who? A hearing examiner or they can request a hearing in front of the commissioners.

951
01:49:17,780 --> 01:49:22,920
 So because that was deleted. So how would they know when that language is deleted from

952
01:49:22,920 --> 01:49:32,140
 the original? Oh, it's in Chapter 143. Okay. They will refer to Chapter 143. So conviction

953
01:49:32,140 --> 01:49:37,700
 or deferred adjudication of felony may result from definitely getting fired to maybe getting

954
01:49:37,700 --> 01:49:43,540
 fired with a felony. It just depends on what the chiefs are recommending. More than likely,

955
01:49:43,540 --> 01:49:49,460
 I would think they would recommend an indefinite suspension. Given the circumstances, I'm not

956
01:49:49,460 --> 01:49:55,020
 100% sure, but I would anticipate that's probably what they would recommend. And so it would

957
01:49:55,020 --> 01:50:04,060
 be just like your normal procedures, disciplinary appeals procedure. So the discretion is up

958
01:50:04,060 --> 01:50:12,020
 to the chiefs? In terms of disciplinary that they want to take? Yes. For a felony? Yes.

959
01:50:12,020 --> 01:50:19,300
 I'm making myself note here. Who makes those decisions? I don't know. I don't know. That's

960
01:50:19,300 --> 01:50:25,860
 a lot of discretion. I mean, I don't see that recommending an indefinite suspension, to

961
01:50:25,860 --> 01:50:35,700
 be honest. But, you know, obviously we had to look at it from the legal standpoint. And

962
01:50:35,700 --> 01:50:40,740
 I think the conviction of a felony for a police officer, the licensing agency, will revoke

963
01:50:40,740 --> 01:50:47,620
 your license. So you wouldn't be able to be a police officer anymore. Yeah, I was gonna

964
01:50:47,620 --> 01:50:52,820
 say that's correct. Teacole won't hold your license if you're convicted with felony anyway.

965
01:50:52,820 --> 01:51:01,500
 In any criminal conviction, I'm gonna recommend indefinite. And then we'd fire him for losing

966
01:51:01,500 --> 01:51:11,620
 his license. So why do we change the language? Again, remind me? Just to make sure we adhere

967
01:51:11,620 --> 01:51:22,260
 to the due process that's required by law. All in reason. They're not at will employees

968
01:51:22,260 --> 01:51:31,740
 or civil service protected employees, which normally give them the right to a hearing.

969
01:51:31,740 --> 01:51:40,140
 Any other questions on that? Now we're moving to rule number 72, regarding military leave

970
01:51:40,140 --> 01:51:48,220
 of absence. And this language has been clarified, modified. If you look at it, it states a promotional

971
01:51:48,220 --> 01:51:53,500
 vacancy is created when a firefighter or police officer is granted a military leave of absence

972
01:51:53,500 --> 01:51:59,460
 to initially enter a branch of the United States Military Service. The city does not

973
01:51:59,460 --> 01:52:04,380
 consider a military leave of absence as a vacant position when a firefighter or police

974
01:52:04,380 --> 01:52:10,180
 officer is recalled to active military duty. Therefore, the chief is not required to fill

975
01:52:10,180 --> 01:52:22,620
 the position. Any questions on that one? Okay. And they're not required, but are they allowed?

976
01:52:22,620 --> 01:52:31,580
 Yeah. So yes, they were allowed to talk about the chief and fill in the position. Yes. Okay.

977
01:52:31,580 --> 01:52:37,580
 And then rule number 86, but in regards to political activities, we have some original

978
01:52:37,580 --> 01:52:45,940
 language and reviewing the Texas local government code, that language was not aligned with the

979
01:52:45,940 --> 01:52:54,580
 Texas local government code. So simply what I did for that is just simply deleted it.

980
01:52:54,580 --> 01:52:58,580
 And basically what will occur if anybody have any questions about, you know, running for

981
01:52:58,580 --> 01:53:14,140
 office, you know, they can refer to the Texas local government code, section 143. And I

982
01:53:14,140 --> 01:53:23,100
 believe that was the last rule. Did you cover rule 86, the political? Which one? 086. Yeah,

983
01:53:23,100 --> 01:53:29,340
 the one about, I just simply deleted it. And I explained about that it wasn't consistent

984
01:53:29,340 --> 01:53:36,860
 with the Texas local government code chapter 143.086. So it was deleted. So chief skipper

985
01:53:36,860 --> 01:53:53,020
 can't run for mayor yet. And so based on our review of these rules,

986
01:53:53,020 --> 01:53:59,280
 what I'm asking is that the commissioner, based on our discussion is I'm asking for

987
01:53:59,280 --> 01:54:06,100
 the commissioners to approve the revisions to the civil service commission, local rules.

988
01:54:06,100 --> 01:54:21,240
 I make a motion that we approve the amendments as presented. I'll second. Sir, discussion.

989
01:54:21,240 --> 01:54:28,100
 What the record show that I still don't like that one that we're talking about this material.

990
01:54:28,100 --> 01:54:39,260
 But to the right people, but anyway, other discussion, all in favor of the approval of

991
01:54:39,260 --> 01:54:51,700
 these of these rules, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay, well, I will get

992
01:54:51,700 --> 01:55:01,540
 the commissioners a clean copy of the rules. Send it to you for your final records. Okay.

993
01:55:01,540 --> 01:55:10,440
 Next, next item on the agenda. We had an agenda, didn't you? Let's talk about future civil

994
01:55:10,440 --> 01:55:21,060
 service meeting meetings. What's coming down the pike? Anything from police? We've covered

995
01:55:21,060 --> 01:55:32,780
 fire recently. So hearing nothing. There's nothing. Sorry, my phone. There's nothing

996
01:55:32,780 --> 01:55:45,500
 coming from police. Okay. So why don't we just let Crystal contact us when they're when

997
01:55:45,500 --> 01:55:55,100
 we're ready to meet again? I think at some point, continue this discussion that we had

998
01:55:55,100 --> 01:56:02,980
 realizing full well that it's more meeting confers than it is ours. But I think we can

999
01:56:02,980 --> 01:56:15,420
 still talk about ways to make our fairer and still do what you do. So I do have a question

1000
01:56:15,420 --> 01:56:21,880
 for you. Yes, sir. I think by some some rule of law, we're prohibited from having more

1001
01:56:21,880 --> 01:56:31,140
 than two of us congregate at the time. Is that correct? Commission? We can't to ever

1002
01:56:31,140 --> 01:56:38,260
 service are not supposed to congregate because it's it's constituted constitutes a meeting.

1003
01:56:38,260 --> 01:56:51,100
 The reason I'm asking about this is because I don't want to wait the September to have

1004
01:56:51,100 --> 01:56:58,140
 a substantive conversation amongst the three of us. So how do we do that? You'd have to

1005
01:56:58,140 --> 01:57:03,220
 do that in a in either a special call meeting or a regular one. You can't just meet at

1006
01:57:03,220 --> 01:57:09,620
 the coffee shop, two of you and talk about it that'd be considered a you'd have a forum

1007
01:57:09,620 --> 01:57:15,980
 and that would be illegal to violate the Open Meetings Act. We could be in the open air.

1008
01:57:15,980 --> 01:57:25,900
 That'd be open. Yeah, you can meet. You understand my concern is that there's a certain momentum

1009
01:57:25,900 --> 01:57:34,580
 we have here and certain urgency. I feel for personal for a variety of personal reasons.

1010
01:57:34,580 --> 01:57:41,020
 I'd like for us to find a way Mr. Chair that we have a call meeting so we can discuss this

1011
01:57:41,020 --> 01:57:48,780
 matter and see if we can come to some resolution among ourselves. And then we can convey that

1012
01:57:48,780 --> 01:57:56,560
 concern to the appropriate parties. I think any meeting if the two or three of you are

1013
01:57:56,560 --> 01:58:00,420
 going to have a meeting on business, it would have to be posted. You just can't do it in

1014
01:58:00,420 --> 01:58:09,460
 secret. Right. Right. That was my whole intent was that rather than wait till September to

1015
01:58:09,460 --> 01:58:16,520
 do something, I think we'll initiate it somehow and come up with some dates where the three

1016
01:58:16,520 --> 01:58:22,060
 of us can get together and we'll get it posted and make it official so that the appropriate

1017
01:58:22,060 --> 01:58:28,940
 persons need to be there while we're having our conversation. I noticed on my calendar

1018
01:58:28,940 --> 01:58:37,100
 I had the 24th of June and maybe that's simply because that's where we normally met is that

1019
01:58:37,100 --> 01:58:43,860
 last Wednesday of the month. I still have that on it on my calendar. If we wanted to

1020
01:58:43,860 --> 01:58:53,020
 try to look for something at that particular point, because it's an open meeting, if we

1021
01:58:53,020 --> 01:59:01,220
 are still doing things virtually next in two weeks, let's say, I assume it has to be televised

1022
01:59:01,220 --> 01:59:10,020
 and everything. Yes. Yes. Even if it's a closed meeting? We would have to open it up in regular

1023
01:59:10,020 --> 01:59:16,620
 session before we could go to closed. So we can open it, start it and go to closed. It

1024
01:59:16,620 --> 01:59:22,580
 still has to be televised while it's closed? No. I mean, for a closed meeting it would

1025
01:59:22,580 --> 01:59:27,540
 be you going into executive session and you... No. I know that she's saying we open it, it's

1026
01:59:27,540 --> 01:59:31,420
 televised while it's open, then we go into closed and y'all stop. Correct. We have to

1027
01:59:31,420 --> 01:59:42,460
 go into executive session. My question would be, and I'll defer to our attorneys, what

1028
01:59:42,460 --> 01:59:50,220
 constitutes valid executive session? Yeah, the question. What other issues does, but

1029
01:59:50,220 --> 01:59:58,060
 what other things? I mean, for purposes of the Civil Service Commission, it would be

1030
01:59:58,060 --> 02:00:04,820
 mainly if you had a legal question and needed some legal advice. I don't know what exception

1031
02:00:04,820 --> 02:00:12,260
 would allow you to go into executive session to just discuss the rules. I can look at it,

1032
02:00:12,260 --> 02:00:20,060
 but I'm not aware of an exception. Could you do this for us? I have several requests. The

1033
02:00:20,060 --> 02:00:28,060
 24th, I have the City of Benton Economic Development's board meeting that day, so I'm unavailable.

1034
02:00:28,060 --> 02:00:33,580
 I think we need to submit several options for ourselves and then also get to hear from

1035
02:00:33,580 --> 02:00:42,500
 the city attorney as to if this request can fit into some proviso that allows us to have

1036
02:00:42,500 --> 02:00:47,620
 that kind of a meeting and then let us know officially and then we can choose a date.

1037
02:00:47,620 --> 02:00:56,980
 You're basically wanting us to, us three to talk so that we can agree so that we don't

1038
02:00:56,980 --> 02:01:04,340
 have, so that we're kind of on the same page when we're looking at these appeals. I don't

1039
02:01:04,340 --> 02:01:08,380
 think we can do that behind closed doors. I don't think we should do that behind closed

1040
02:01:08,380 --> 02:01:17,140
 doors. We can have this discussion, but I don't think it needs to be an executive session.

1041
02:01:17,140 --> 02:01:24,620
 I think it needs to be just out there. I'm okay about being out there. I'm okay. I just

1042
02:01:24,620 --> 02:01:36,660
 didn't know the protocol. Yeah. I still consider myself new, so sorry Chair. It's okay. Could

1043
02:01:36,660 --> 02:01:43,900
 you send out some possible, look into some dates, especially if we're going to do it

1044
02:01:43,900 --> 02:01:49,940
 sooner rather than later, we probably will still be doing it virtually. Therefore, we

1045
02:01:49,940 --> 02:01:56,660
 need to look at all of the ramifications of that. So could you and Stephanie look into

1046
02:01:56,660 --> 02:02:04,200
 that and Michael, if you can kind of help us know whether we can or cannot go into any

1047
02:02:04,200 --> 02:02:09,500
 kind of executive session. Let me ask you this. What is it that you want to discuss

1048
02:02:09,500 --> 02:02:17,500
 in executive session? Well, I think we want to have this discussion and interrupt me if

1049
02:02:17,500 --> 02:02:23,860
 I'm incorrect here, commissioners. We want to continue this discussion that we were having

1050
02:02:23,860 --> 02:02:38,260
 about the materials and the procedures with appeals. I'll look into it. Yeah. If you're

1051
02:02:38,260 --> 02:02:42,320
 asking me for legal advice, we could do that in executive session. But if it's just the

1052
02:02:42,320 --> 02:02:46,740
 three of you talking it out, I don't think we can, but I'll get a definitive answer and

1053
02:02:46,740 --> 02:02:56,380
 let Stephanie know. Okay. All right. Well, so if we can get maybe some dates that fit

1054
02:02:56,380 --> 02:03:03,820
 everybody else's schedule, including the city, then we can send us some optional dates, put

1055
02:03:03,820 --> 02:03:11,100
 it on the calendar. Okay. Can I ask a question though? If we're just trying to get on the

1056
02:03:11,100 --> 02:03:16,460
 same page, I mean, I think the most that we can do is what express our concerns to the

1057
02:03:16,460 --> 02:03:22,760
 people that go with associations and the people that are representing the departments, right?

1058
02:03:22,760 --> 02:03:29,900
 Because those changes have to ultimately happen there before we even do anything, right? This

1059
02:03:29,900 --> 02:03:37,900
 is basically, mostly this is meet and confer. It would have to be, we can express our concerns

1060
02:03:37,900 --> 02:03:46,380
 to the chiefs and to the associations as they move forward in their next meet and confer

1061
02:03:46,380 --> 02:03:54,060
 discussion, which is probably what, a year away? A year, three years away? Yes, it's

1062
02:03:54,060 --> 02:04:00,100
 a three-year contract, so it's three years away. And so in the meantime, there really

1063
02:04:00,100 --> 02:04:06,380
 isn't much to change. Right. I'm just trying, I'm trying to understand that process because

1064
02:04:06,380 --> 02:04:12,640
 I even had a question about the points that the fire department added, because those have

1065
02:04:12,640 --> 02:04:18,620
 to be made through the, or approved through the meet and confer, right? From the department

1066
02:04:18,620 --> 02:04:29,380
 association, right? So those, the process would be like for someone to give you, like

1067
02:04:29,380 --> 02:04:34,660
 the thing that I, let me just be transparent. One of the things that I have asked like the

1068
02:04:34,660 --> 02:04:40,860
 police is to hire people who are bilingual. So whenever I saw that a point was added because

1069
02:04:40,860 --> 02:04:45,420
 you live in Denton, a point was added because you went through the DISD fire program, I

1070
02:04:45,420 --> 02:04:50,860
 think those are great additions, but I would think as a, as a community member of a community

1071
02:04:50,860 --> 02:04:56,900
 that's 25, 26% Hispanic, that maybe a point could be added if a person is bilingual. Denton

1072
02:04:56,900 --> 02:05:03,040
 ISD has a bilingual seal that whenever graduates graduate from Denton ISD schools, high schools,

1073
02:05:03,040 --> 02:05:07,740
 they can have that seal. So if that seal comes out, that could also be a point for, for one

1074
02:05:07,740 --> 02:05:12,140
 of these, or if they don't go through Denton ISD schools, that they would take an exam

1075
02:05:12,140 --> 02:05:16,780
 to prove their proficiency, both in oral and written Spanish. So you know what I mean?

1076
02:05:16,780 --> 02:05:25,660
 So like those types of suggestions, the commission, you know, suggest those, who, what's the route?

1077
02:05:25,660 --> 02:05:31,500
 What's the, that's, that's meet and confer. Right, that's meet and confer, but if I'm

1078
02:05:31,500 --> 02:05:37,500
 not part of the police department, I'm not part of the association, then how do those

1079
02:05:37,500 --> 02:05:43,580
 suggestions get routed to that? I think I would have to, I can bring them up and I'll

1080
02:05:43,580 --> 02:05:48,180
 bring them up in discussion during the next meeting, confer. Yeah. Yeah. You can make

1081
02:05:48,180 --> 02:05:53,860
 your, your concerns or desires known to the chiefs and they can bring them to the table.

1082
02:05:53,860 --> 02:06:00,380
 Absolutely. Okay. So anything that we come up with this, the language of the quoted source

1083
02:06:00,380 --> 02:06:05,540
 material we're bringing, we're going to meet, we're going to bring that up. We'll give that

1084
02:06:05,540 --> 02:06:11,140
 to the chiefs and in three years you guys will fit it in the meet and confer. Right?

1085
02:06:11,140 --> 02:06:15,900
 That's basically what it is, yeah. Okay. For the next set of commissioners, for the next

1086
02:06:15,900 --> 02:06:20,540
 set of commissioners, right? I'll talk to the chiefs and see if there's maybe a way

1087
02:06:20,540 --> 02:06:27,300
 of fine tuning that language with the association without having to go back to the negotiating

1088
02:06:27,300 --> 02:06:33,780
 table. Well, and I think, I personally think we sort

1089
02:06:33,780 --> 02:06:39,540
 of sent them, sent a message today to the chiefs and the associations that are here

1090
02:06:39,540 --> 02:06:47,180
 that, about some of our concerns. So, I mean, I, again, I think it's out of our hands to

1091
02:06:47,180 --> 02:06:53,860
 make any decision. It's in their hands. We have expressed our concerns with that, with

1092
02:06:53,860 --> 02:07:04,020
 the language as it exists. So. This is orange juice, by the way, just in

1093
02:07:04,020 --> 02:07:12,220
 case y'all are wondering. Yes, but it's a vodka in it. If there's nothing

1094
02:07:12,220 --> 02:07:19,660
 else for the good of the order, I would entertain a motion that we adjourn at 1 10 p.m.

1095
02:07:19,660 --> 02:07:27,540
 I'll second. I assume there's no, no discussion, so I'll

1096
02:07:27,540 --> 02:07:32,540
 ever say aye. Oh, I'm so sorry. I did have one question.

1097
02:07:32,540 --> 02:07:37,060
 Take that back. I'm sorry, I totally forgot. So, I'm so sorry.

1098
02:07:37,060 --> 02:07:42,780
 So this is just, this is maybe related or not related. Just because Commissioner Baines

1099
02:07:42,780 --> 02:07:49,580
 and I are both on this commission, if we both serve on the ad hoc use of force, ad hoc use

1100
02:07:49,580 --> 02:07:54,340
 of force on the ad hoc committee, is that, does that, is there a conflict there?

1101
02:07:54,340 --> 02:08:04,220
 I don't think so. I mean, I get, well, theoretically, I guess if, if you were here to force appeal,

1102
02:08:04,220 --> 02:08:08,820
 maybe. But I just wanted to, I just want to throw

1103
02:08:08,820 --> 02:08:13,220
 that out there because I know he's chairing that committee and I, I will probably serve

1104
02:08:13,220 --> 02:08:17,700
 as the LULAC representative. So I just want to make sure there's not a.

1105
02:08:17,700 --> 02:08:23,860
 I think what they have also, when you, when you get ready to express your interest for

1106
02:08:23,860 --> 02:08:30,260
 that committee, I believe the city secretary's office, they have a form, which is called

1107
02:08:30,260 --> 02:08:33,420
 like a conflict of interest form. And I think they have everybody fill that

1108
02:08:33,420 --> 02:08:38,620
 form out. It's like an application process. So I would just include that information on

1109
02:08:38,620 --> 02:08:41,740
 there and then they'll take a look at. That we're both commissioners.

1110
02:08:41,740 --> 02:08:42,740
 Yes. Yes.

1111
02:08:42,740 --> 02:08:47,820
 All right. Sorry. Now I'm ready. That will be my recommendation.

1112
02:08:47,820 --> 02:08:57,060
 Okay. Now there's a motion on the floor. Now it's 1-11, Crystal. So all in favor of

1113
02:08:57,060 --> 02:09:00,900
 adjourning, say aye. Aye.

1114
02:09:00,900 --> 02:09:04,700
 All right. Thank you all. Thanks to everyone for your time.