WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:14.960 Morning. Like to call the June 15th meeting of the Civil Service Commission to order at 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 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 00:00:34.960 --> 00:00:46.760 chair of the Civil Service Commission. Colin. I'm the training chief for the Dinford Department. 00:00:46.760 --> 00:00:54.280 Okay. Michael Kronig. Yes, sir. Michael Kronig, deputy city attorney. And I started working 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 00:01:00.120 --> 00:01:04.700 attorney with the city of Austin Law Department and handled all their police and fire civil 00:01:04.700 --> 00:01:19.640 service matters. Crystal. I'm Crystal. I'm the civil service secretary. John. Hi, I'm 00:01:19.640 --> 00:01:25.840 John Baines. I'm a local businessman and a volunteer on the Civil Service Commission. 00:01:25.840 --> 00:01:36.600 Lillian. I'm Lillian Prado Carrillo and I'm a commissioner. Stephanie. Hi, Stephanie Lang. 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. 00:01:46.440 --> 00:01:53.560 Let's say Jason. Good morning. Jason Ballard, president of the Denton Fire and Fire Association. 00:01:53.560 --> 00:02:01.560 Okay. Tiffany Thompson. Hey, good morning, Tiffany. HR director with the city. Okay. 00:02:01.560 --> 00:02:10.600 And Chief Dixon. Good morning, everybody. Frank Dixon, chief of police for the city 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 00:02:16.400 --> 00:02:23.680 stars and everything. Next order of business is to receive public comments, and I'm gonna 00:02:23.680 --> 00:02:36.760 simply read this. Civil Service Commission members did get one. We did receive one comment 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 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 00:02:59.160 --> 00:03:13.880 hopefully that's legally correct. So next order of business is to prove eligibility 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 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 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. 00:03:53.360 --> 00:04:05.040 Okay. Entertain a motion that we approve the captain's promotional list as calculated. 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. 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 00:04:23.220 --> 00:04:30.720 this after the appeals adjustments have been made? They're after. I thought they were after. 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 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 00:04:54.600 --> 00:05:04.280 chief list. Again, fire. Are there any questions? Any comments? No comments. Okay. Commissioners, 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 00:05:45.960 --> 00:05:52.960 you determine that? By the date that they were promoted on their current rank. So those 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 00:05:58.480 --> 00:06:05.440 the first tiebreaker. Or actually the first tiebreaker is the raw score. Right. So raw 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 00:06:12.080 --> 00:06:18.360 seniority points. Yes. The seniority points is maxed out at 10 points. So you might've 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 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 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, 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 00:06:41.640 --> 00:06:57.400 or that? Yes. Okay. I was just wondering how that worked. All right. Any other questions? 00:06:57.400 --> 00:07:05.720 The nomenclature, the description on the, it's different. On the captains it says post appeals, 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 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. 00:07:26.760 --> 00:07:32.840 I don't think that probably needs another motion, does it? We, it was just discussion. 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, 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 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 00:07:48.040 --> 00:07:54.120 need to be addressed to make sure there's no confusion henceforth. Can we make that 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. 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 00:08:15.480 --> 00:08:24.320 aye of, of, of accepting the battalion chief list, say aye. Aye. Okay. Opposed? There's 00:08:24.320 --> 00:08:33.200 three, zero. Next order of business is to take action on the position of opportunity 00:08:33.200 --> 00:08:50.600 announcement that you have in your packet or a September five test for police. I will 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 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 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 00:09:19.480 --> 00:09:29.200 that that was what this is pertaining to? Stephanie? Normally in regards to any comments 00:09:29.200 --> 00:09:35.560 made according to the meeting notice, we do not discuss the comments at all. Of course 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:10:11.200 --> 00:10:19.320 meeting to actually discuss it. What is the proper notification? I mean, is the, what's 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 00:10:27.160 --> 00:10:32.760 not accept any further recruits until the newly appointed ad hoc committee has had time 00:10:32.760 --> 00:10:39.640 to discuss or investigate or suggest any new information pertaining to the police department. 00:10:39.640 --> 00:10:45.200 So my understanding is that if we're talking about police, police recruiting an exam and 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, 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 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 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 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 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 00:11:19.200 --> 00:11:26.560 this item that it certainly could be read into the record and discussed. Ultimately, 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 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 00:11:40.120 --> 00:11:48.520 is, is to approve just the announcement of the test. The commenter, they were basically 00:11:48.520 --> 00:11:56.400 stating that the police department should not move forth with recruiting or hiring any 00:11:56.400 --> 00:12:04.280 new recruits for the police department. So the subject matters are a little bit different. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 00:13:11.640 --> 00:13:16.560 take the exam, potentially the police department might not have new recruits until all of that 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 00:13:23.040 --> 00:13:34.640 the commissioners and then moving forward. Okay, we can do that. Just a bit of information. 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 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 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 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. 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 00:14:18.800 --> 00:14:25.480 then after such discussion, we move forward according to the dictates of the commissions. 00:14:25.480 --> 00:14:35.080 Okay. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Are we gonna read? Are you gonna read the 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 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. 00:14:52.320 --> 00:15:04.800 Aye. Opposed? All right, the information on the white card. New police recruit must new 00:15:04.800 --> 00:15:11.760 police recruit recruitment. I'm sorry, must be reconsidered until full internal investigation 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 00:15:19.520 --> 00:15:27.480 abuse by police. The new Denton use of force committee must understand the need for the 00:15:27.480 --> 00:15:34.680 defunding better use can be done with the money for our community and proper training 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 00:15:41.480 --> 00:15:53.920 recruits this year. So discussion. I think you're right. Since you're saying that the 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 00:15:59.440 --> 00:16:02.800 it was important to acknowledge the comments that are made, especially from the public. 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 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 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 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 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 00:16:32.680 --> 00:16:40.520 along with the police department works out whatever it needs to work out. My input is 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 00:16:56.320 --> 00:17:05.280 to fill vacancies. And until we have an overall strategy or retooling design for the department, 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 00:17:12.120 --> 00:17:19.640 place. And I do appreciate the gentleman's input. And I think at the first opportunity, 00:17:19.640 --> 00:17:27.160 this particular comment needs to be considered, you know, along with the other things, the 00:17:27.160 --> 00:17:33.440 use of force and the refund issues, the defunding calls for police departments, all that needs 00:17:33.440 --> 00:17:38.720 to be discussed. But to put everything on hold until we have that discussion, I think 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 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 00:17:51.240 --> 00:17:57.240 way to take care of those other conversations as well and not just the police recruitment 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, 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 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 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 00:18:33.000 --> 00:18:41.000 by this committee and other decisions are likely to go beyond our September 5th test 00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:47.240 date, which could run into not having candidates, not having an eligibility list, not having 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 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 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 00:19:10.960 --> 00:19:20.720 leave completely short. But I agree that the comment was appropriate for our discussion, 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 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, 00:19:35.080 --> 00:19:42.040 that the white card consideration be addressed at the earliest opportunity. However, I agree 00:19:42.040 --> 00:19:57.280 that we need to move forward. >> Can I add just a friendly, like what you 00:19:57.280 --> 00:20:01.720 said, that it be considered at the earliest convenience before new hires? 00:20:01.720 --> 00:20:13.000 >> I'm okay with that. >> Just that. Yep. And I'm good. 00:20:13.000 --> 00:20:14.000 >> I'm okay. >> Chief Dixon, where are we? Do you have 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 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. 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. 00:20:43.360 --> 00:20:54.040 >> So John, you're seconding or allowing Lillian's friendly amendment. All right. Krista, could 00:20:54.040 --> 00:21:00.080 you read the motion to us, please, ma'am? >> Yes, sir. So Commissioner Baines has motion 00:21:00.080 --> 00:21:07.440 to approve the -- to approve with the white card addressed at the earliest convenience 00:21:07.440 --> 00:21:16.080 before the new hires, but to move forward with the entrance exam posting. 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 00:21:33.840 --> 00:21:38.480 candidates? >> As I understand it, the Mayor's committee 00:21:38.480 --> 00:21:44.040 is going to be looking at useful force and useful force policies. They are not charged 00:21:44.040 --> 00:21:49.600 with looking at recruitment and training, although when it comes to useful force, there 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 00:21:54.480 --> 00:22:06.840 a report back on the recruitment process. So that would be my only -- my only issue 00:22:06.840 --> 00:22:14.200 with that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We can at the same time be looking at 00:22:14.200 --> 00:22:21.040 a parallel factor in our recruitment while the committee is going on, taking some suggestions 00:22:21.040 --> 00:22:24.600 on our own and doing that, if that's okay with the commission. 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 00:22:31.600 --> 00:22:36.800 other than the acknowledgement of the card. It's just saying to be addressed. I understand 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 00:22:41.500 --> 00:22:47.560 that are putting forth the comment, moving forward with the test, which is absolutely 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 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 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? 00:23:00.240 --> 00:23:07.860 >> Okay. >> This is Michael Croninger. I don't think the commission is saying that the police 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 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 00:23:18.720 --> 00:23:26.800 a prohibition that the department can't actually start recruiting people off of that list. Am 00:23:26.800 --> 00:23:33.400 I misunderstanding that or? >> Yeah. There's no stoppage. We just need to 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 00:23:42.800 --> 00:23:48.400 opportunity. >> And remember, and we will vote on this, 00:23:48.400 --> 00:23:54.320 and remember also that we approve the recruitment list. The police brings that recruitment list 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. 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 00:24:10.760 --> 00:24:17.680 meeting and maybe even our October meeting, depending on when they get it done, so. 00:24:17.680 --> 00:24:22.640 >> And I think the commission, if you're satisfied that those concerns have been addressed, I 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 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 00:24:35.880 --> 00:24:44.480 that these matters have been addressed. >> Okay. All in favor of the motion to approve 00:24:44.480 --> 00:24:53.560 the POA, say aye. >> This is the motion that Dr. Baines made, 00:24:53.560 --> 00:24:57.920 right? >> Yeah. Aren't they one and the same for 00:24:57.920 --> 00:25:00.720 all intent purposes? >> Yeah. There was just different language 00:25:00.720 --> 00:25:04.680 on it that Crystal, I think, or someone read. >> Well, then that's the -- 00:25:04.680 --> 00:25:09.400 >> That's this motion. >> They're all one and the same. The language 00:25:09.400 --> 00:25:18.800 has changed, but yes, it is the new motion, but it still approves the proceeding with 00:25:18.800 --> 00:25:23.000 the POA. >> Okay. I agree. 00:25:23.000 --> 00:25:26.560 >> All in favor, say aye. >> Aye. 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 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 00:25:47.520 --> 00:25:55.840 not have to nor probably should we discuss any issue that comes as a public comment. 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 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. 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 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, 00:26:27.360 --> 00:26:36.120 even if it was in person, them sitting right there. We would not discuss it. Okay. 00:26:36.120 --> 00:26:44.280 Next order of business is the revisions to the local rules and regulations. You all received 00:26:44.280 --> 00:27:02.960 those. So I will defer to staff on this. >> Provided you a document with the highlighted 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 00:27:18.760 --> 00:27:26.520 to have discussion regarding any rules that were not changed but are in the local rules, 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 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 00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:54.680 include the language that there was a recent meeting confer agreement that was approved 00:27:54.680 --> 00:28:03.440 by city council on September 26th -- well, September 26th of 2006. And it was one subsequently 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 00:28:10.120 --> 00:28:20.640 have any questions regarding rule number three on appointment? All right. Next one. 00:28:20.640 --> 00:28:27.840 >> Stephanie, 2006 is the correct date. >> Yes. 00:28:27.840 --> 00:28:33.560 >> Okay. >> That's probably the initial -- 00:28:33.560 --> 00:28:36.760 >> It should be September 26th. Thank you, commissioner. 00:28:36.760 --> 00:28:41.560 >> September 26th, 2006. >> Of 2006. Yeah. 00:28:41.560 --> 00:28:44.960 >> Okay. That's the original one. >> That's the original. 00:28:44.960 --> 00:28:49.400 >> Okay. >> If you go on to eligibility, which is 00:28:49.400 --> 00:28:55.480 under number seven. It's still under rule number three, but it's in parentheses seven 00:28:55.480 --> 00:29:00.640 dealing with the eligibility list. There was a change in that. And I have it highlighted 00:29:00.640 --> 00:29:09.440 on your paper there. And basically, it discusses that when a vacancy occurs at the beginning 00:29:09.440 --> 00:29:15.280 of a position, the department head requests inviting from the director names of persons 00:29:15.280 --> 00:29:20.120 and the director should certify and provide all of the names of the commissioners to the 00:29:20.120 --> 00:29:25.320 department head. The eligibility list is created -- well, created considering the applicant's 00:29:25.320 --> 00:29:33.040 oral interview board and the chief's oral interview board score and the chief's interview 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. 00:29:49.480 --> 00:29:51.800 Any questions on that? >> No. 00:29:51.800 --> 00:29:57.200 >> No. >> So this is different from the fire department. 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 00:30:04.180 --> 00:30:07.840 board and a chief's interview. This is for the police. 00:30:07.840 --> 00:30:13.880 >> Let me go to the -- >> Yes. 00:30:13.880 --> 00:30:28.760 >> Right about now, I'm actually missing my two screens on my computer. 00:30:28.760 --> 00:30:47.160 >> Yes. >> Section 7. 00:30:47.160 --> 00:31:15.080 >> Sorry, I have several different scores, several different papers here. 00:31:15.080 --> 00:31:27.160 >> Okay. Yes, that's in the police one. Meeting confer agreement. And this is regarding the 00:31:27.160 --> 00:31:35.740 beginning positions. >> I thought maybe we were talking about something 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 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. 00:31:42.880 --> 00:31:50.160 So you're saying police takes into consideration interviews and oral interview scores and all 00:31:50.160 --> 00:31:56.800 of it, but fire doesn't? >> I can answer from the fire's perspective. 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. 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 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 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 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 00:32:22.200 --> 00:32:26.920 of banded together. At the end of that interview process, they are recalculated, repositioned 00:32:26.920 --> 00:32:31.720 based on interview scores as well. So that is what creates the eligibility list that the 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 00:32:35.760 --> 00:32:42.360 there's a reason to bypass. >> That's only for the entry level? 00:32:42.360 --> 00:32:43.360 >> Yes, ma'am. >> For promotional? 00:32:43.360 --> 00:32:49.440 >> Correct. Any other promotional, we have to follow 143, but strictly the written exam. 00:32:49.440 --> 00:32:56.280 >> Okay. But that's not the same for police? >> Police is a little bit different. Their 00:32:56.280 --> 00:33:01.320 placement on the eligibility list is based on the written exam alone. And then they have 00:33:01.320 --> 00:33:05.880 to get a cumulative score of 70 and higher. Promotional candidates would be subject to 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. 00:33:09.920 --> 00:33:18.920 >> Is that entry only? >> For the entry only, for initially for a 00:33:18.920 --> 00:33:25.720 beginning position, it's based on a written examination only. And then for promotional 00:33:25.720 --> 00:33:33.400 candidates, they subject to a written examination as well as an oral presentation that they 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 00:33:38.600 --> 00:33:45.000 will be ranked according to their score on the eligibility list. Any other questions 00:33:45.000 --> 00:33:51.980 about that particular section? So both of those rules were based, it was changed based 00:33:51.980 --> 00:33:59.780 on the meeting conferred agreements. >> Okay. Stephanie, can you help me? Maybe 00:33:59.780 --> 00:34:04.900 I'm a little confused. So there's meeting conferred that the police department along 00:34:04.900 --> 00:34:10.140 with the association, I guess, work together and they pass? 00:34:10.140 --> 00:34:13.120 >> Yes. >> And then this is rules and regulations 00:34:13.120 --> 00:34:16.120 from the commission? >> Uh-huh. Yes. 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 00:34:22.560 --> 00:34:26.560 not? Are they just? >> The meeting conferred agreement, because 00:34:26.560 --> 00:34:32.400 it does obligate the city from a contractual obligation, it would supersede the commission 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 00:34:38.560 --> 00:34:44.560 make the local rules comply with what was agreed upon based on the meeting conferred agreement. 00:34:44.560 --> 00:34:50.440 >> Okay. So we're taking our commission rules and regulations from the commission to reflect 00:34:50.440 --> 00:34:56.440 what they've already passed? >> Yes. Basically. Yeah. Because we want to 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. 00:35:02.320 --> 00:35:05.960 But if you ask me which one would supersede, it would be the meeting conferred agreement, 00:35:05.960 --> 00:35:10.680 because it's a contractual obligation for the city at this point. 00:35:10.680 --> 00:35:14.800 >> That's correct. >> Ours is what? Just guidelines? 00:35:14.800 --> 00:35:19.160 >> Yeah. Pretty much guidelines. And then, you know, I think it's important also for 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 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 00:35:29.240 --> 00:35:35.400 proceedings and, you know, your rules that govern the commission. But we still have to 00:35:35.400 --> 00:35:41.760 make sure that those rules are in compliance with the meeting conferred agreement and obviously 00:35:41.760 --> 00:35:48.720 the Texas local government code as well and any other relevant statute or law. 00:35:48.720 --> 00:35:56.440 >> Okay. >> Okay. Now, we're still on rule number 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 00:36:06.160 --> 00:36:13.120 been revised slightly because a question came up regarding working day. And this is just 00:36:13.120 --> 00:36:19.800 in regard to accrued holiday vacation sick leave time, because as you know, the police 00:36:19.800 --> 00:36:26.240 department as well as the fire department, many of the employees work various shifts. 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. 00:36:35.280 --> 00:36:42.080 And that's in regard to accumulation or accrued holiday vacation and sick leave time. And 00:36:42.080 --> 00:36:50.440 so that language was modified for clarification to show it's eight hours. All right. Next 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 00:37:01.600 --> 00:37:08.120 for modification for clarification purposes. And you'll see that in this particular rule, 00:37:08.120 --> 00:37:13.840 we just added language. While the commission is not required to approve departmental rules, 00:37:13.840 --> 00:37:19.320 no such departmental rules should be in conflict with the provisions of the civil service rules. 00:37:19.320 --> 00:37:24.680 So we're just trying to make sure that there's no conflict of interest there. 00:37:24.680 --> 00:37:29.680 >> And when you say civil service rules, you're saying chapter 133 of the Texas code. 00:37:29.680 --> 00:37:34.040 >> No. We're talking about the civil service commission rules. 00:37:34.040 --> 00:37:41.840 And what I can do is add clarification and make sure I include civil service commission 00:37:41.840 --> 00:37:58.400 rules. I'll add civil service commission rules on there. Any other questions about that? 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 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 00:38:24.560 --> 00:38:30.360 and removal of person classified immediately below the department head. The revision that 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 00:38:39.120 --> 00:38:43.960 by the city council, by ordinance, the chief of police department and chief of the fire 00:38:43.960 --> 00:38:49.000 department are hereby authorized to appoint each person occupying the authorized position 00:38:49.000 --> 00:38:54.460 in the classification immediately below that of the department head as allowed by state 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. 00:39:03.320 --> 00:39:10.080 We also included language referring to the meeting confer agreement that was recently 00:39:10.080 --> 00:39:16.800 approved dated for September 24th of 2019. And again, we mentioned it again in the last 00:39:16.800 --> 00:39:25.080 paragraph there. We made reference to the article relevant in the meeting confer agreement 00:39:25.080 --> 00:39:33.100 that was approved on September 24th of 2019. Any questions or concerns about that one before 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. 00:39:43.640 --> 00:39:50.020 And in that one, based on the language that was approved in the police meeting confer 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 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 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 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 00:40:24.440 --> 00:40:43.280 the entrance exams. And this one here, we had some language that was changed. And we 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 00:40:49.080 --> 00:40:55.800 that the eligibility list was good for. So for clarification purposes, we included that 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 00:41:03.680 --> 00:41:11.880 also made in regard to the fire meeting confer agreement, they have some additional points 00:41:11.880 --> 00:41:23.120 that new entry employees would get be awarded. And those additional points include one additional 00:41:23.120 --> 00:41:30.040 points if they completed the independent school district high school fire program, and they 00:41:30.040 --> 00:41:35.640 obtain a certification through that particular program. They also get an additional point 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 00:41:42.040 --> 00:41:46.320 that certification from the Department of State Health Services. And lastly, they get 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 00:41:51.800 --> 00:41:56.760 approved fire and meet and confer agreement. So I included that language in this section 00:41:56.760 --> 00:42:02.400 also. Stephanie, you may have caught these, but 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, 00:42:14.680 --> 00:42:26.360 but and obtained certification. Just so you got those, make it as clean as we can. 00:42:26.360 --> 00:42:35.080 Thank you, Commissioner. All right. And then if we go further down, the next paragraph 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 00:42:40.400 --> 00:42:47.600 to that last paragraph that's highlighted there for you. And basically talks about, 00:42:47.600 --> 00:42:52.000 and this is based on the police meeting confer agreement, candidates with the passing score 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:58.200 will be placed on the eligibility list in the order of their overall eligibility scores. 00:42:58.200 --> 00:43:03.760 And that includes test scores plus any additional points. The entire eligibility list will be 00:43:03.760 --> 00:43:09.880 provided to the police department at one time for further processing. And all those applicants 00:43:09.880 --> 00:43:17.920 will be considered to have been referred at that time. New eligibility lists may be created 00:43:17.920 --> 00:43:23.600 while an active list is being processed. The effective date of an eligibility list may 00:43:23.600 --> 00:43:29.320 be set to coincide with the expiration of the eligibility list, a time period between 00:43:29.320 --> 00:43:37.600 three and 12 months until a specified number of candidates for an academic class have been 00:43:37.600 --> 00:43:43.000 hired in any combination of these. The condition that will determine when an active list may 00:43:43.000 --> 00:43:55.080 be closed, other than by commission, must be determined prior to the posting of the exam. 00:43:55.080 --> 00:43:59.360 Candidates may not be hired from an eligibility list that is graded after an existing active 00:43:59.360 --> 00:44:05.840 eligibility list has been established until the existing list has been exhausted or expired. 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 00:44:13.040 --> 00:44:17.880 lateral insurance officer. And they may be processed as such and hired while an existing 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 00:44:25.040 --> 00:44:28.760 the Civil Service Commission, the Civil Service that recommend closed and eligibility lists 00:44:28.760 --> 00:44:34.000 and counsel candidates processing if sufficient reason as determined by the commission is 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 00:44:39.360 --> 00:44:45.560 Conferring Agreement. I know that was a long one. Anyone have any questions on that one? 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 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 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 00:45:07.120 --> 00:45:14.000 a 75. And they met the minimum requirement and they're still right there waiting. But 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 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 00:45:23.320 --> 00:45:30.280 hired if they passed? Not necessarily. They do have, you know, and we very seldom use 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 00:45:35.040 --> 00:45:43.720 the Texas Local Government Code before you can utilize that. But yes, typically, routinely, 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 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 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 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 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 00:46:11.400 --> 00:46:17.920 would be a reason for the commission to close the eligibility list? That last couple of 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 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 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 00:46:38.520 --> 00:46:43.760 now because of the close nature. So there may be circumstances where the commission 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. 00:46:51.920 --> 00:46:57.560 And if learning and reading the language, I mean, that would be the civil service director 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 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 00:47:14.320 --> 00:47:24.880 closing of it. We simply approve it from the director, civil service director. Is that 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 00:47:35.400 --> 00:47:39.560 would need your approval because they early on would say with your approval, the civil 00:47:39.560 --> 00:47:45.720 service director would be eligible to list. You would have a reason. Exactly. You would 00:47:45.720 --> 00:47:51.120 have a reason to bring it to us. Yes. And there would be some special circumstances 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 00:48:02.080 --> 00:48:14.740 rule number 25, reappointment after resignation. Again, this is based on language that was 00:48:14.740 --> 00:48:19.800 added. If a person is being appointed as a lateral entry level police officer, the officer 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 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 00:48:32.560 --> 00:48:38.320 was some changes there for clarification. It states that upon certification of the commission 00:48:38.320 --> 00:48:43.040 list for fire procedures for filling a beginning position in the fire department shall be in 00:48:43.040 --> 00:48:48.140 accordance with article four of the meeting confer agreement. And then it states upon 00:48:48.140 --> 00:48:53.760 certification of the eligibility list for police procedures for filing a beginning position 00:48:53.760 --> 00:48:57.520 in the police department shall be made in accordance with article four of the police 00:48:57.520 --> 00:49:02.400 meeting confer agreement. Acceptance applies to officers hired under the modified hiring 00:49:02.400 --> 00:49:10.040 process. That's described in article four of section 11, are for reappointment of police 00:49:10.040 --> 00:49:21.560 officers. Any questions in that regard? Nope. Moving on to the next one. Rule number 27, 00:49:21.560 --> 00:49:28.680 the probationary period. This one just provides that the commission hereby extends the probationary 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 00:49:33.920 --> 00:49:44.520 position in the police and fire department as provided under chapter 143.027. In the 00:49:44.520 --> 00:49:49.320 next section that was revised of that same section is the meeting conferring is approved 00:49:49.320 --> 00:49:56.120 by the city council on September 26th of 2006 and subsequent agreements, which mentions 00:49:56.120 --> 00:50:05.440 September 24th, 2019. It included these provisions below. A, for police all new hires for police 00:50:05.440 --> 00:50:11.240 positions hired lateral entry officer, applicants and reappointed officers will serve a one 00:50:11.240 --> 00:50:18.120 year probation beginning on the date of being commissioned or recommissioned as a police 00:50:18.120 --> 00:50:26.880 officer. This is inclusive of current police officers commission on or before the ratification 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 00:50:36.520 --> 00:50:42.680 was revised slightly just to make mention or reference the new meeting confer agreements 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 00:50:51.920 --> 00:51:00.880 was specifically changed here in terms of how many officers or firefighters have to 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 00:51:09.360 --> 00:51:15.760 notice of intent to test forms and that's for promotional examinations, not entry level 00:51:15.760 --> 00:51:28.280 promotional examinations. Any questions on that? And if we go to rule number 32, section 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 00:51:36.360 --> 00:51:40.000 department head believes the security of a test has been compromised, the department 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:46.360 head at his or her sole discretion may administer a substitute test in compliance with Texas 00:51:46.360 --> 00:51:57.120 local government code 143.32A. And then number four was added. Also, all remote tests shall 00:51:57.120 --> 00:52:06.680 be conducted in compliance with 142.032 of the Texas local government code. All right. 00:52:06.680 --> 00:52:15.320 Moving on to number 33 regarding promotional examination grades in regard to seniority points. 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 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 00:52:28.600 --> 00:52:37.080 any seniority points are added for a total score on the eligibility list. Any questions 00:52:37.080 --> 00:52:43.520 on that? Comments? No? Then rule number 34 regarding review and appeal of promotional 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 00:52:55.560 --> 00:53:00.840 has upon completion of grading, each promotional candidate by himself or herself may review 00:53:00.840 --> 00:53:06.800 his or her examination and answers. The examination grading and the source material for the examination 00:53:06.800 --> 00:53:14.720 in the presence of a monitor designated by the civil service director. If filing an appeal, 00:53:14.720 --> 00:53:19.760 the notice of appeal must be filed with the civil service director or designee in writing 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 00:53:27.680 --> 00:53:33.360 wrong scores. And they must include the basis for their appeal. Appeals shall be limited 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 00:53:39.840 --> 00:53:46.480 to the quoted source material, it will not be considered by the commission. And just 00:53:46.480 --> 00:53:58.720 to confirm, that's for the fire department and the police department. Stephanie, of course, 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 00:54:11.800 --> 00:54:22.240 know what pronoun to use, by the quoted source material? Do they mean the quoted material 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 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 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 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, 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 00:54:59.960 --> 00:55:06.760 a question for the local rules or meeting confer, or where that needs to be clarified, 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 00:55:17.440 --> 00:55:24.140 when somebody brought in an internet article on a medication for EMTs that said it was 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 00:55:34.720 --> 00:55:42.720 think the commissioners all want this addressed. Yeah, okay. Chief Harris, if I could get some 00:55:42.720 --> 00:55:51.040 input from you, because based on the meeting confer agreement for police, they edit language 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 00:55:58.480 --> 00:56:10.640 Code, that the source material should be limited, the appeals should be limited to the quoted 00:56:10.640 --> 00:56:16.840 source material attribute to the reference examination question. So I think they tried 00:56:16.840 --> 00:56:23.880 to basically clarify what was meant by quoted material. So my question for you in regard 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 00:56:30.760 --> 00:56:36.560 is meant by the quoted source material? The intent behind the quoted source material was 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 00:56:42.920 --> 00:56:47.920 this book and which questions come from that specific book, because I mean, taking these 00:56:47.920 --> 00:56:52.480 tests for years, and you cannot write a test that does not have conflicting information. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 00:57:16.760 --> 00:57:21.520 So we have actually included the book down to the page number where the question comes 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 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. 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 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. 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, 00:57:45.280 --> 00:57:50.400 eight times. So they have these memorized way better than the test writer themselves. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 00:58:17.080 --> 00:58:23.080 very smart individuals out there that know how to, you know, make a very effective appeal. 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? 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 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, 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 00:59:22.840 --> 00:59:27.400 that specific that people would be confused as to which source material it's actually 00:59:27.400 --> 00:59:28.400 coming from. 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 00:59:31.920 --> 00:59:37.680 and know the conflicting difference between the two books. That is the big issue right 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 00:59:42.600 --> 00:59:47.280 little caveats where they do conflict, yes, you have a good appeal. If you studied it 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 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 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 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 01:00:04.640 --> 01:00:12.920 a process and just how we get to a better process to reduce the appeals. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 01:01:13.320 --> 01:01:17.160 So if they use another book to justify their wrong answer, then obviously we can, with 01:01:17.160 --> 01:01:21.640 a clear conscience, we can say no, because it was referenced on that, you know, above 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 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 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 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 01:01:42.680 --> 01:01:47.320 answer. Does that make sense? It makes sense, but the whole intent behind 01:01:47.320 --> 01:01:50.160 this was try to reduce and limit the number of appeals that commissioners would have to 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 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 01:01:58.960 --> 01:02:03.800 not correct? Chief Skipper, we list the book that the questions are from right now. So 01:02:03.800 --> 01:02:08.520 if we have the first 15 set of questions are from book one. So is that- 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 01:02:12.800 --> 01:02:15.920 from every single page? That's civil service. Well, there's no way 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:02:48.600 --> 01:02:52.200 entry level process because it used to, on our entry level candidates, it was strictly 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 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, 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 01:03:03.760 --> 01:03:08.320 well they answered questions as that worked the job. We haven't transferred that into 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 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 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, 01:03:24.640 --> 01:03:29.240 it's not prohibited under 143 for you to make those modifications for promotional exams 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 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 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 01:03:44.760 --> 01:03:49.240 the additions to the promotional exam. You have to have your fire officer choose certificates 01:03:49.240 --> 01:03:54.520 and these other things because that is outside normal 143 requirements. So yes, any changes 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 01:04:46.640 --> 01:04:52.280 quoted word out and just said limited to the source material that is referenced or however 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. 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, 01:05:05.520 --> 01:05:10.200 the department's right there, justification of upholding the key is that it's a direct 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 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 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 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 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, 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 01:05:41.680 --> 01:05:46.280 around it. We're not saying to go through other outside books, not referenced on this 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 01:06:28.320 --> 01:06:30.400 and to reference source material? 01:06:30.400 --> 01:06:36.360 I mean, from my perspective, I'm fine with that language, whatever the commission, you 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 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 01:06:45.840 --> 01:06:49.880 their only opportunity. They take a test and the only opportunity to make any justice modifications 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 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 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 01:07:01.800 --> 01:07:06.200 and they present a cohesive appeal, they spend the time, they sit through the whole, you 01:07:06.200 --> 01:07:10.200 know, two hours, three hours that it takes us to go through everybody else's appeals. 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 01:07:13.600 --> 01:07:18.800 gone through all that trouble and they can present a cohesive argument, a good argument, 01:07:18.800 --> 01:07:24.160 a persuasive argument, then we should, and we should approve their appeal. But that would, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 01:07:55.480 --> 01:07:59.880 change whatever really kind of the commission's desire. 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. 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 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 01:08:24.140 --> 01:08:32.720 something in conflict to that or addition to that, then more conflict, then, then that 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. 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 01:08:47.800 --> 01:09:00.120 chapter, verse of a particular book because that's a lot of memorization for when they 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 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 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 01:09:23.640 --> 01:09:34.200 book than we had when we were allowing them to quote material from the source material, 01:09:34.200 --> 01:09:37.200 meaning the whole list. 01:09:37.200 --> 01:09:42.360 I appreciate that. Let me just add some, so I actually have a personal example because 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 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 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 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 01:10:00.460 --> 01:10:04.940 and knew the language exactly. I even kept a folder over the conflicts, the quantum but 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:10:43.280 --> 01:10:47.440 to study because it's that important because a promotion is based off a hundred question 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 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 01:10:56.400 --> 01:11:00.080 the difference as well, and they appreciate something that is more strict, that's more 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 01:11:06.880 --> 01:11:10.280 bring in these different components as well. Now they're kind of bringing validity to their 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 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. 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 01:11:24.240 --> 01:11:27.280 did from studying initially for the first test. 01:11:27.280 --> 01:11:32.560 Some do more effort into the appeals than actually studying. Yes, you are correct. 01:11:32.560 --> 01:11:37.980 And let me just remind everyone that in the police meeting confer, they did include language 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 01:11:43.840 --> 01:11:49.920 meeting confer agreement, you can't consider, the commission cannot consider information 01:11:49.920 --> 01:11:56.280 outside of that reference quoted material. Okay, but reference quoted material, is it 01:11:56.280 --> 01:12:00.160 that one sentence, or is it the book? What's the reference material? 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. 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 01:12:10.360 --> 01:12:17.760 question, they reference that's on page 10, paragraph three. Well, when that person appealed 01:12:17.760 --> 01:12:21.880 and you're considering their appeal, based on the language that I understand from the 01:12:21.880 --> 01:12:28.640 police meeting confer agreement, you will be limited to that reference section. If the 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 01:12:36.280 --> 01:12:42.520 it's on a different page number, then that was referenced. Based on the meeting confer 01:12:42.520 --> 01:12:47.360 agreement, you would still be limited. That's my understanding. 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 01:12:53.000 --> 01:12:56.080 even be allowed, questions shouldn't even be allowed to be appealed because you're already 01:12:56.080 --> 01:13:01.880 locked in, you already know the answer. Yeah, I think that's part of the question, 01:13:01.880 --> 01:13:11.560 because then if that's the case, then the commission serves no function. 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. 01:13:19.360 --> 01:13:22.720 They need to memorize certain guidelines and protocols, but I need somebody that's gonna 01:13:22.720 --> 01:13:27.040 have critical thinking skills on something that they've never seen before, but that they 01:13:27.040 --> 01:13:31.760 can draw from all these different experiences and they can make a solid argument and follow 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 01:13:35.760 --> 01:13:41.400 to memorize. That's actually state 143 statute. That's what 01:13:41.400 --> 01:13:45.400 we're having followed, though, because we don't have exceptions on our promotional process. 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 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. 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, 01:14:06.280 --> 01:14:10.080 Councilman. No, I'll follow you. 01:14:10.080 --> 01:14:16.640 I was just gonna say that along Chief Hedges' personal experience, you know, we study those 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 01:14:21.960 --> 01:14:28.080 against a question or they rule in favor for an appellant, that affects the person who 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 01:15:05.160 --> 01:15:11.760 little argument they possibly can find to try to sway three commissioners' opinion about 01:15:11.760 --> 01:15:16.840 a test question, as opposed to the fact that they just got the question wrong. 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, 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. 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 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 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 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 01:15:56.400 --> 01:16:02.480 the opportunities for answers, it's expanding more time. And I understand we want critical 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 01:16:10.200 --> 01:16:18.360 sure I'm committed to doubling or tripling my time of investment in reading all that 01:16:18.360 --> 01:16:24.520 material. So that's my dilemma. Thank you for letting me in. 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. 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. 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 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 01:17:03.720 --> 01:17:10.640 language and have further discussions on this? It would seem to me that any further discussions 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 01:17:21.040 --> 01:17:30.800 specifications are meet and confer specifications. I'm looking at your contract, the police contract 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 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 01:17:43.960 --> 01:17:55.080 to hold up approving everything just for delaying it if you don't want to. 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 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 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 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 01:18:24.520 --> 01:18:31.680 of this document, can we just live with quoted source material? 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. 01:18:42.120 --> 01:18:46.320 You could say referenced to say that it's referenced in reference to those particular 01:18:46.320 --> 01:18:52.560 questions. All right. Where's that language, Stephanie? 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 01:19:04.120 --> 01:19:21.320 in yellow. I'll read it again for the record. And keep 01:19:21.320 --> 01:19:31.120 in mind this language is being included in here again, because if you look at article 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 01:19:40.640 --> 01:19:49.000 meet and confer agreement, this is the language that was included in the agreement. In regard 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 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 01:20:15.240 --> 01:20:21.640 if I'm wrong. Okay. In the fire meeting confer agreement, 01:20:21.640 --> 01:20:32.600 they referenced that under section seven of article five. And they have appeals from the 01:20:32.600 --> 01:20:38.040 commission under section 143.034 of the Texas local government code should be limited to 01:20:38.040 --> 01:20:46.320 quoted source material attributable to the reference examination question. Then if you 01:20:46.320 --> 01:20:54.120 go to police meet and confer agreement, and theirs is under article five, one B under 01:20:54.120 --> 01:21:04.720 limited scope of appeal, they have that same language. So in actuality commissioners, we 01:21:04.720 --> 01:21:12.960 can't say anything. No matter the contract, Stephanie said the contract is what controls 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 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 01:21:23.840 --> 01:21:29.600 back to the contract. Right. And why do we then why do we have this 01:21:29.600 --> 01:21:36.240 department of rules where you say that the commission are required to approve department 01:21:36.240 --> 01:21:40.000 of rules, but no such department of rules should be in conflict with the provisions 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 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 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 01:21:54.720 --> 01:21:58.560 together. Like what you're saying, you just already decided your rules and we have to 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 01:22:05.180 --> 01:22:10.480 part you just talked about department rules kind of implied, excuse me, that the needed 01:22:10.480 --> 01:22:15.880 to approve the police department's internal rules. And I suggest to just clarifying that 01:22:15.880 --> 01:22:21.480 the commission doesn't have to do that. The meeting confer process does give the association 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 01:22:28.880 --> 01:22:35.860 department doesn't have the authority to override the civil service rules, including your rules. 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 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 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 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 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 01:22:58.400 --> 01:23:06.520 to a different organization or the state or whatever, you know, the place to make those 01:23:06.520 --> 01:23:13.360 arguments. I still think probably the the commission's role isn't to interpret the meet 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 01:23:19.760 --> 01:23:25.440 making having this discussion about what is the appropriate source material, there's probably 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 01:23:31.240 --> 01:23:37.820 police contract, it's it has a specific reference of, you know, the quoted material, however 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, 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 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, 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 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 01:24:06.240 --> 01:24:15.460 the contracts specify that you can send a message to the representative to say that's 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, 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 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 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 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 01:24:53.160 --> 01:24:57.840 in the book, there may be something conflicting. So maybe the test construction can try to 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 01:26:51.700 --> 01:26:58.920 Skipper, Jason, those guys, you know what, you know, our frustration at this point. And 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 01:27:04.400 --> 01:27:11.760 give you my two cents from the from our association perspective, because I understand your frustration. 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 01:27:17.320 --> 01:27:23.680 you as commissioners have. Really, from from my perspective, it was to limit questions 01:27:23.680 --> 01:27:30.640 to when I say quoted source material, is that particular book, as opposed to a particular 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. 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 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 01:27:48.640 --> 01:27:56.600 when you start throwing out questions, it adversely impacts a candidate got it correct. 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 01:28:02.880 --> 01:28:07.960 it correct, you shouldn't be adversely impacted. Now you started looking at fractions of points. 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 01:28:11.680 --> 01:28:16.800 all answers, you move on, everybody gets credit, and it doesn't adversely impact someone or 01:28:16.800 --> 01:28:24.280 benefit one over another for a bad question. Yeah, that was chairman. No, I understand. 01:28:24.280 --> 01:28:32.120 And over the years that throwing out the question is the last possible alternative, simply because 01:28:32.120 --> 01:28:42.040 it does, ever how small it does impact the overall value of every other question. And 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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, 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, 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 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 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 01:30:12.400 --> 01:30:17.600 with the association presidents and try to clarify that I think that may be appropriate 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 01:30:22.560 --> 01:30:28.600 done, maybe trying to do that to avoid exactly problem you're talking about. 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 01:30:34.880 --> 01:30:43.980 frustration among the commissioners. And simply for this, this reason, if we can come to some 01:30:43.980 --> 01:30:49.280 understanding clarification of that, that would be greatly appreciated. And we can move 01:30:49.280 --> 01:30:52.560 on. So can we move on in the in the 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 01:30:58.800 --> 01:31:04.600 understands the frustration came because we want to do right by the firefighters. It's 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 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 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 01:31:19.120 --> 01:31:23.920 least for me. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Okay. 01:31:23.920 --> 01:31:31.400 All right. So just the confirmation is the commissioners are you all in agreement with 01:31:31.400 --> 01:31:38.520 keeping the language as is for now? I'm okay with that. Yes. 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 01:31:44.320 --> 01:31:50.360 multiple choice questions appeal to the civil service. You'll be sustained or overruled 01:31:50.360 --> 01:31:57.560 and in actuality or overruled should be crossed out are thrown out that should be crossed 01:31:57.560 --> 01:32:04.080 out as well. And the new language for that to replace those terms is disqualified by 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. 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 01:32:15.380 --> 01:32:20.140 in here and that shouldn't have been in there. Okay, the promotional examination multiple 01:32:20.140 --> 01:32:25.720 choice questions appeal to the civil service commission will be sustained or disqualified 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? 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. 01:32:47.280 --> 01:32:52.000 Throw them out. That language is going to stay the same because 01:32:52.000 --> 01:33:04.720 it's only applicable to, it's only applicable to the police. 01:33:04.720 --> 01:33:11.160 We don't disqualify in throwing out a question and disqualifying a question the same thing. 01:33:11.160 --> 01:33:17.800 We accept other answers. In consultation with, in consultation with 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 01:33:26.960 --> 01:33:31.160 and disqualified, disqualifying a question was a term that was suggested. 01:33:31.160 --> 01:33:37.480 Okay, because you're saying disqualified for on Article 3. 01:33:37.480 --> 01:33:43.200 Just to replace the term of being thrown out, the question being thrown out. 01:33:43.200 --> 01:33:46.600 Okay. Okay, let me go back because I think I probably 01:33:46.600 --> 01:33:54.320 have made some confusion here. We're going to keep the language as is, that's 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 01:34:00.660 --> 01:34:06.320 because what changed here is that with the fire and meat confer agreement that was approved 01:34:06.320 --> 01:34:13.280 by city council September 24th, it states they had added language that all test questions 01:34:13.280 --> 01:34:20.160 will be graded with either one best answer correct, multiple answers correct or all answers 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 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 01:34:36.480 --> 01:34:44.920 to still throw out a question for an appeal question. Does that make sense? 01:34:44.920 --> 01:34:51.880 There's two standards there. Right, yes, one standard for fire, one standard 01:34:51.880 --> 01:34:57.360 for police. Exactly. And so I will remind you as we do 01:34:57.360 --> 01:35:04.200 appeals, I will remind you sort of like a tip sheet that that standard is applicable 01:35:04.200 --> 01:35:07.960 depending on what kind of appeals that you're reviewing, whether it's police or whether 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 01:35:12.760 --> 01:35:20.520 language in parenthesis only applicable for police and then the language below that starts 01:35:20.520 --> 01:35:25.800 off with the fire and meat confer agreement approved by city council, that language would 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 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 01:35:42.760 --> 01:35:50.000 stance is on that. Critical for fire because they included that language in the meeting 01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:57.440 confer agreement. Chief, do you have any comments you might want to add regarding that particular 01:35:57.440 --> 01:36:04.400 provision about throwing out a question? Chief Dixon or Chief Hedges, either one of you? 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 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. 01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:20.680 I guess the question wasn't just for this particular question. I thought along the lines, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 01:37:43.480 --> 01:37:48.280 particular, in these sections, it was just clarification added more so than anything 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 01:37:54.880 --> 01:38:01.360 the director show provides the absentee balloting in an alternate promotional system in a police 01:38:01.360 --> 01:38:08.640 department. And then rule number 36 corrected that to include promotional appointments for 01:38:08.640 --> 01:38:15.440 the ranks of deputy chief and assistant chief in accordance with article six of the meeting 01:38:15.440 --> 01:38:22.880 conferring agreement. Stephanie, I have a question, please. Yes. When you says if adopted 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 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. 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 01:38:52.860 --> 01:39:00.880 looks like you've kind of restructured your, your, your rankings. Sergeant and lieutenant 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 01:39:09.320 --> 01:39:14.060 haven't restructured it. Those were actually made before I got here. They added the assistant 01:39:14.060 --> 01:39:19.720 chief and deputy chief ranks, or they kind of restructured how those lay out. But those 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 01:39:26.960 --> 01:39:32.360 in lieu of sergeant and lieutenant, or are there no sergeant and lieutenant. So it goes 01:39:32.360 --> 01:39:39.960 from officer to sergeant to lieutenant to deputy chief, assistant chief, and then chief 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, 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 01:40:00.880 --> 01:40:08.680 suspensions. And this was just clarification. If you look at number section, subsection 01:40:08.680 --> 01:40:13.560 two, the department head may not suspend an employee based upon an act that occurred more 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 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 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 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 01:40:41.760 --> 01:40:48.200 and fire meeting confer agreements approved by the city council on September 22nd, 2009, 01:40:48.200 --> 01:40:51.280 the written statement does not have to be filed with the commission unless the police 01:40:51.280 --> 01:40:57.160 officer or the firefighter appeals the written statement to the commission. And that's referenced 01:40:57.160 --> 01:41:05.000 the article nine, section one of the fire agreement and article seven and section three 01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:10.260 of the police agreement. The language that was added is if the police officer or firefighter 01:41:10.260 --> 01:41:15.640 appeals, the written statement must be filed with the commission within 120 hours of the 01:41:15.640 --> 01:41:19.800 filing of the notice of appeal. Subsequent agreements, including the most current agreements 01:41:19.800 --> 01:41:28.920 approved on September 24th, 2019 for both police and fire continue to allow. Okay, any 01:41:28.920 --> 01:41:29.920 questions? 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 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 01:41:45.960 --> 01:41:50.960 is suspended. Wouldn't it be prior to the date of the act? 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 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 01:42:08.200 --> 01:42:12.480 to, that's what the statute says prior to the date the employee is suspended. So. 01:42:12.480 --> 01:42:17.920 - Okay, so the department head may not suspend an employee based upon an act that occurred 01:42:17.920 --> 01:42:22.960 more than 180 days prior to the date the employee is suspended. 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 01:42:31.960 --> 01:42:34.400 is kind of confusing itself. 01:42:34.400 --> 01:42:43.000 - All right, any other questions about that rule? Okay, then we go to rule number 53. 01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:48.180 We're going to appeal of the disciplinary suspension. If you go under section number 01:42:48.180 --> 01:42:54.040 three, we added language, only temporary and definite suspensions and voluntary demotions 01:42:54.040 --> 01:43:00.080 may be appealed to the commission. Employee dissatisfaction resulting from a transfer 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 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. 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, 01:43:31.160 --> 01:43:59.260 oh, let me refer, I don't know if I get, let me put that right. 01:43:59.260 --> 01:44:08.180 Okay. In regard to rule number 53, subsection I3, the language is only for number three, 01:44:08.180 --> 01:44:14.660 it says only temporary and definite suspensions, voluntary demotions may be appealed. Sorry, 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 01:44:29.620 --> 01:44:36.300 53, the new language is under section three of that, employees and their legal representative. 01:44:36.300 --> 01:44:41.500 So we added the term legal to clarify that language as to what representatives may obtain 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 01:44:51.340 --> 01:44:58.500 file on the employee. I'm going to start back over reading this entire paragraph. Employees 01:44:58.500 --> 01:45:02.820 and their legal representatives may obtain copies of matters contained in the city's 01:45:02.820 --> 01:45:08.940 personnel file on the employee, which may include disciplinary records. The employee 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 01:45:15.980 --> 01:45:22.580 representative shall receive a copy of such records, even if the records are confidential 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 01:45:29.780 --> 01:45:36.100 in that language it talks about a subpoena adduces ticum. And basically we included language 01:45:36.100 --> 01:45:42.100 that requests for subpoenas must be filed on the 11th day prior to the scheduled hearing 01:45:42.100 --> 01:45:47.500 in order to be processed in a timely manner. Any questions? 01:45:47.500 --> 01:45:53.460 I just want to tell you why we changed that. The statute says firefighter police officer 01:45:53.460 --> 01:46:00.260 must make the request before the 10th day, before the date the commission hearing is 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 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. 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 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 01:46:53.380 --> 01:46:58.140 appeal and the record of the proceedings, a copy of the exhibits submitted together with 01:46:58.140 --> 01:47:06.340 a copy of the final decision shall be filed in the commission records. Any questions about 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 01:47:26.700 --> 01:47:38.140 after felony indictment or misdemeanor complaint, we modified the language some. The new language 01:47:38.140 --> 01:47:43.700 has a conviction or deferred adjudication of a felony may result in the firefighter or 01:47:43.700 --> 01:47:50.420 police officer being terminated from his or her position. There was language regarding 01:47:50.420 --> 01:47:56.140 no hearing before the civil service commission or independent hearing examiner will be provided. 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 01:48:04.740 --> 01:48:09.660 being terminated or police being terminated. It should be may result, may result. Sorry 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 01:48:14.080 --> 01:48:17.620 original language. It said that they would be in the new language. You're saying they 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? 01:48:24.300 --> 01:48:33.020 Yeah. And the only reason the language, more than likely, if they're actually convicted 01:48:33.020 --> 01:48:39.300 and there's enough evidence, then more than likely the firefighter or police officer would 01:48:39.300 --> 01:48:49.120 likely be terminated. But as a civil service employee, they have a right to a hearing. 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. 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. 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 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. 01:49:17.780 --> 01:49:22.920 So because that was deleted. So how would they know when that language is deleted from 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 01:49:32.140 --> 01:49:37.700 or deferred adjudication of felony may result from definitely getting fired to maybe getting 01:49:37.700 --> 01:49:43.540 fired with a felony. It just depends on what the chiefs are recommending. More than likely, 01:49:43.540 --> 01:49:49.460 I would think they would recommend an indefinite suspension. Given the circumstances, I'm not 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 01:49:55.020 --> 01:50:04.060 be just like your normal procedures, disciplinary appeals procedure. So the discretion is up 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. 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 01:50:19.300 --> 01:50:25.860 a lot of discretion. I mean, I don't see that recommending an indefinite suspension, to 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 01:50:35.700 --> 01:50:40.740 I think the conviction of a felony for a police officer, the licensing agency, will revoke 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 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. 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 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 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 01:51:22.260 --> 01:51:31.740 or civil service protected employees, which normally give them the right to a hearing. 01:51:31.740 --> 01:51:40.140 Any other questions on that? Now we're moving to rule number 72, regarding military leave 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 01:51:48.220 --> 01:51:53.500 vacancy is created when a firefighter or police officer is granted a military leave of absence 01:51:53.500 --> 01:51:59.460 to initially enter a branch of the United States Military Service. The city does not 01:51:59.460 --> 01:52:04.380 consider a military leave of absence as a vacant position when a firefighter or police 01:52:04.380 --> 01:52:10.180 officer is recalled to active military duty. Therefore, the chief is not required to fill 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? 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. 01:52:31.580 --> 01:52:37.580 And then rule number 86, but in regards to political activities, we have some original 01:52:37.580 --> 01:52:45.940 language and reviewing the Texas local government code, that language was not aligned with the 01:52:45.940 --> 01:52:54.580 Texas local government code. So simply what I did for that is just simply deleted it. 01:52:54.580 --> 01:52:58.580 And basically what will occur if anybody have any questions about, you know, running for 01:52:58.580 --> 01:53:14.140 office, you know, they can refer to the Texas local government code, section 143. And I 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, 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 01:53:29.340 --> 01:53:36.860 with the Texas local government code chapter 143.086. So it was deleted. So chief skipper 01:53:36.860 --> 01:53:53.020 can't run for mayor yet. And so based on our review of these rules, 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 01:53:59.280 --> 01:54:06.100 the commissioners to approve the revisions to the civil service commission, local rules. 01:54:06.100 --> 01:54:21.240 I make a motion that we approve the amendments as presented. I'll second. Sir, discussion. 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. 01:54:28.100 --> 01:54:39.260 But to the right people, but anyway, other discussion, all in favor of the approval of 01:54:39.260 --> 01:54:51.700 these of these rules, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay, well, I will get 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. 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 01:55:10.440 --> 01:55:21.060 service meeting meetings. What's coming down the pike? Anything from police? We've covered 01:55:21.060 --> 01:55:32.780 fire recently. So hearing nothing. There's nothing. Sorry, my phone. There's nothing 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:56:31.140 --> 01:56:38.260 service are not supposed to congregate because it's it's constituted constitutes a meeting. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 01:57:25.900 --> 01:57:34.580 we have here and certain urgency. I feel for personal for a variety of personal reasons. 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 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 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 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 01:58:00.420 --> 01:58:09.460 secret. Right. Right. That was my whole intent was that rather than wait till September to 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 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 01:58:22.060 --> 01:58:28.940 persons need to be there while we're having our conversation. I noticed on my calendar 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:59:31.420 --> 01:59:42.460 go into executive session. My question would be, and I'll defer to our attorneys, what 01:59:42.460 --> 01:59:50.220 constitutes valid executive session? Yeah, the question. What other issues does, but 01:59:50.220 --> 01:59:58.060 what other things? I mean, for purposes of the Civil Service Commission, it would be 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 02:01:43.900 --> 02:01:49.940 sooner rather than later, we probably will still be doing it virtually. Therefore, we 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 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 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 02:02:09.500 --> 02:02:17.500 in executive session? Well, I think we want to have this discussion and interrupt me if 02:02:17.500 --> 02:02:23.860 I'm incorrect here, commissioners. We want to continue this discussion that we were having 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 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 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 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 02:02:56.380 --> 02:03:03.820 everybody else's schedule, including the city, then we can send us some optional dates, put 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 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 02:03:16.460 --> 02:03:22.760 people that go with associations and the people that are representing the departments, right? 02:03:22.760 --> 02:03:29.900 Because those changes have to ultimately happen there before we even do anything, right? This 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 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 02:03:46.380 --> 02:03:54.060 discussion, which is probably what, a year away? A year, three years away? Yes, it's 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 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 02:04:06.380 --> 02:04:12.640 I even had a question about the points that the fire department added, because those have 02:04:12.640 --> 02:04:18.620 to be made through the, or approved through the meet and confer, right? From the department 02:04:18.620 --> 02:04:29.380 association, right? So those, the process would be like for someone to give you, like 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 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 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 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 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 02:04:56.900 --> 02:05:03.040 ISD has a bilingual seal that whenever graduates graduate from Denton ISD schools, high schools, 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 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 02:05:12.140 --> 02:05:16.780 to prove their proficiency, both in oral and written Spanish. So you know what I mean? 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? 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 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 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 02:05:43.580 --> 02:05:48.180 bring them up in discussion during the next meeting, confer. Yeah. Yeah. You can make 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. 02:05:53.860 --> 02:06:00.380 Absolutely. Okay. So anything that we come up with this, the language of the quoted source 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 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? 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 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 02:06:20.540 --> 02:06:27.300 of fine tuning that language with the association without having to go back to the negotiating 02:06:27.300 --> 02:06:33.780 table. Well, and I think, I personally think we sort 02:06:33.780 --> 02:06:39.540 of sent them, sent a message today to the chiefs and the associations that are here 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 02:06:47.180 --> 02:06:53.860 make any decision. It's in their hands. We have expressed our concerns with that, with 02:06:53.860 --> 02:07:04.020 the language as it exists. So. This is orange juice, by the way, just in 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 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. 02:07:19.660 --> 02:07:27.540 I'll second. I assume there's no, no discussion, so I'll 02:07:27.540 --> 02:07:32.540 ever say aye. Oh, I'm so sorry. I did have one question. 02:07:32.540 --> 02:07:37.060 Take that back. I'm sorry, I totally forgot. So, I'm so sorry. 02:07:37.060 --> 02:07:42.780 So this is just, this is maybe related or not related. Just because Commissioner Baines 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 02:07:49.580 --> 02:07:54.340 of force on the ad hoc committee, is that, does that, is there a conflict there? 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, 02:08:04.220 --> 02:08:08.820 maybe. But I just wanted to, I just want to throw 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 02:08:13.220 --> 02:08:17.700 as the LULAC representative. So I just want to make sure there's not a. 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 02:08:23.860 --> 02:08:30.260 that committee, I believe the city secretary's office, they have a form, which is called 02:08:30.260 --> 02:08:33.420 like a conflict of interest form. And I think they have everybody fill that 02:08:33.420 --> 02:08:38.620 form out. It's like an application process. So I would just include that information on 02:08:38.620 --> 02:08:41.740 there and then they'll take a look at. That we're both commissioners. 02:08:41.740 --> 02:08:42.740 Yes. Yes. 02:08:42.740 --> 02:08:47.820 All right. Sorry. Now I'm ready. That will be my recommendation. 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 02:08:57.060 --> 02:09:00.900 adjourning, say aye. Aye. 02:09:00.900 --> 02:09:04.700 All right. Thank you all. Thanks to everyone for your time.