Morning. Like to call the June 15th meeting of the Civil Service Commission to order at
1103. First order is the introduction of guests. Why don't we go around the room really quickly
and just simply say who we are and what we do. So, my name is Darrell Ramsey. I'm the
chair of the Civil Service Commission. Colin. I'm the training chief for the Dinford Department.
Okay. Michael Kronig. Yes, sir. Michael Kronig, deputy city attorney. And I started working
for the city April of this year for the 20 years prior to that, I was an assistant city
attorney with the city of Austin Law Department and handled all their police and fire civil
service matters. Crystal. I'm Crystal. I'm the civil service secretary. John. Hi, I'm
John Baines. I'm a local businessman and a volunteer on the Civil Service Commission.
Lillian. I'm Lillian Prado Carrillo and I'm a commissioner. Stephanie. Hi, Stephanie Lang.
I'm the civil service director. Kenneth. Kenneth Hedges. I'm fire chief with the Dinford Department.
Let's say Jason. Good morning. Jason Ballard, president of the Denton Fire and Fire Association.
Okay. Tiffany Thompson. Hey, good morning, Tiffany. HR director with the city. Okay.
And Chief Dixon. Good morning, everybody. Frank Dixon, chief of police for the city
of Denton Police Department. Okay. Thank you all. Now we have all the guests and all the
stars and everything. Next order of business is to receive public comments, and I'm gonna
simply read this. Civil Service Commission members did get one. We did receive one comment
on a virtual white card. The commissioners have received it, and we don't read it. We
don't comment on it. We simply take it into account as we move forward. So that's probably
hopefully that's legally correct. So next order of business is to prove eligibility
list for fire battalion chief and captain. So hang on a second. Where's my captain? There
it is. So fire captain. Commissioners, you have the list in front of you. I will defer
to fire to make any comments that they might want to make about the list. No comments.
Okay. Entertain a motion that we approve the captain's promotional list as calculated.
I move that we approve the list as presented. All right. Any discussion? I did have a question.
The scores that are listed here are prior to the appeals. Is that not correct? Or is
this after the appeals adjustments have been made? They're after. I thought they were after.
Okay. Okay. Thank you. There are no other comments. I would all in favor of the motion
to accept the captain's promotional list or say aye. Aye. Opposed? And next is the battalion
chief list. Again, fire. Are there any questions? Any comments? No comments. Okay. Commissioners,
I would entertain a motion. I'll motion that we accept the list for the two promotional
tests. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Now, is there any discussion? Any
questions of fire? I don't know if this is, go ahead, Dr. Baines. No, go ahead, please.
I was just wondering, is this, I should have asked this before, but are these the only
things taken into consideration whenever you're going to promote the next person up? Yes ma'am.
So there's not like an interview. There's not anything else. It's just strictly on.
So like in the case of the first list, when they were tied all the same score, how do
you determine that? By the date that they were promoted on their current rank. So those
were the drivers taking captain's test. Whoever's the most senior driver in a tiebreaker, that's
the first tiebreaker. Or actually the first tiebreaker is the raw score. Right. So raw
score is the first tiebreaker and then it's the time in rank. That's different than your
seniority points. Yes. The seniority points is maxed out at 10 points. So you might've
been a driver for 12. You might, you might've been with the department for 17 years, but
you're only ever going to get 10 seniority points. Oh, I see. Wow. So it's strictly based
just on the, basically on the exam. Yes ma'am. Okay. And that's, that's, is that part of,
or that was decided with like your, what we're going to discuss later on, the regulations
or that? Yes. Okay. I was just wondering how that worked. All right. Any other questions?
The nomenclature, the description on the, it's different. On the captains it says post appeals,
March 4th. And then the other one, it says final scores. I think just for the sake of
less confusion, they should be the same. We'll make sure we do that for the next time. Okay.
I don't think that probably needs another motion, does it? We, it was just discussion.
We were just discussing, so I just brought that up. Well, I know, but if we change anything,
we're probably going to change the five, the captain. So do we need a motion to change
that on the captain's list? Or change. I just was making you aware that eventually it does
need to be addressed to make sure there's no confusion henceforth. Can we make that
change at house? And if you want to, it's not a difference. It's just changing the language.
Right. Right. And that's fine with you. Okay. Do we, do we vote on that? All in favor say
aye of, of, of accepting the battalion chief list, say aye. Aye. Okay. Opposed? There's
three, zero. Next order of business is to take action on the position of opportunity
announcement that you have in your packet or a September five test for police. I will
ask police if they have any comments. We do not. Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a
motion on the, can I ask a question? Isn't this, this is relevant to what the white card
was. So do we not need to discuss the white card before we discuss or at least acknowledge
that that was what this is pertaining to? Stephanie? Normally in regards to any comments
made according to the meeting notice, we do not discuss the comments at all. Of course
you get a copy of it, but it's not for discussion. And what, then what would be the point of
them submitting the comment? I mean, the, it has to do with the police and the new recruits
and all of that. And so. Well, it's for consideration and Michael can correct me if I'm wrong, but
I believe in order for you to go into discussion about a comment overall, it has to be on the
agenda for the, for a future discussion. If you want to put it on the agenda for later
discussion. We would have to, we would have to put it on the, on the agenda for our next
meeting to actually discuss it. What is the proper notification? I mean, is the, what's
on the white card relevant to what's posted? The white card is asking us to, to not, to
not accept any further recruits until the newly appointed ad hoc committee has had time
to discuss or investigate or suggest any new information pertaining to the police department.
So my understanding is that if we're talking about police, police recruiting an exam and
all of these things, I mean, that seems like. Yeah. I tend to agree with, yeah. I mean,
I tend to agree with you. Ultimately it's up to the commission, but if, if it's relevant
to what's the posted language is, I don't think it would be an appropriate, I'm not
sure what your rules are. If you just read it into the record, I'm not sure typically
what you do with those white cards. I'm not used to that process. I know this is a new
process for, for all of us, but it seems like it would be appropriate if it's related to
this item that it certainly could be read into the record and discussed. Ultimately,
it's up to the commission to decide that. Yeah. I think, I think the comment was just
a little bit different in terms of what's on the agenda for the announcement. The announcement
is, is to approve just the announcement of the test. The commenter, they were basically
stating that the police department should not move forth with recruiting or hiring any
new recruits for the police department. So the subject matters are a little bit different.
So it's okay to post a police recruit examination, potentially we're not going to hire any new
recruits. Set the exam forth. That's fine. Whether we stop, whether we post it and there's
just no jobs offered if we decide to go that way or however all of that works, I'm not
sure who, what body. I just feel like it's important for us if we have finally did receive
a white card and someone's giving a comment, I think we need to acknowledge that. Especially
it has to do with, with new recruits and the new exam is leading up to new recruits.
I defer to the commissioners. Yeah, me too. I think it's up to you if you think it's relevant
by all means. I, I don't think it's inappropriate to just read it and discuss it if you want
to. I think it'd be important to read it even if we make a motion and we decide ultimately
to go ahead and post the notice of the civil service exam. I think we need to read it to
acknowledge it probably does have some hesitation. Even the exam that may be set forth and people
take the exam, potentially the police department might not have new recruits until all of that
else gets heard. I'm in favor of discussing the white card and making a decision amongst
the commissioners and then moving forward. Okay, we can do that. Just a bit of information.
Any hires that are done before September 5th will come off of last year's anyway. Last
year's list approved list of recruits until that list is exhausted. And I don't think
that we're at that point for the so by September 5th, we'll be ready to give give a test. That
doesn't mean we're gonna hire anybody. It just means we're we're gonna get the test.
But John, do you want to make that a motion? I motion that we discuss the white card and
then after such discussion, we move forward according to the dictates of the commissions.
Okay. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Are we gonna read? Are you gonna read the
white card or not? If we pass the motion? Gotta do that first. Is there any discussion
on the motion? Motion to read the information from the white card and discuss it. Say aye.
Aye. Opposed? All right, the information on the white card. New police recruit must new
police recruit recruitment. I'm sorry, must be reconsidered until full internal investigation
of Denton PD and a true grasp on how to change a long standing tradition of racial and economic
abuse by police. The new Denton use of force committee must understand the need for the
defunding better use can be done with the money for our community and proper training
of any new recruits before any new recruits can join. I urge you to consider no new police
recruits this year. So discussion. I think you're right. Since you're saying that the
new recruits would come from last year's or the last list, I understand that. I just felt
it was important to acknowledge the comments that are made, especially from the public.
They've taken the time to submit them. If what you're saying, I mean, if there's not
any kind of, what can I say, like any kind of comment or anything, I mean, if they take
the civil service exam, there's no kind of guarantee or anything that they're gonna be
considered for a job up, you know, in the next few months from this list, then I don't
to them posting this as long as I said, we've acknowledged that and this new ad hoc committee
along with the police department works out whatever it needs to work out. My input is
as follows. We're currently, we need to be careful that we have an ample supply of applicants
to fill vacancies. And until we have an overall strategy or retooling design for the department,
I think we need to operate as normal until that revised strategy or policy is put in
place. And I do appreciate the gentleman's input. And I think at the first opportunity,
this particular comment needs to be considered, you know, along with the other things, the
use of force and the refund issues, the defunding calls for police departments, all that needs
to be discussed. But to put everything on hold until we have that discussion, I think
would be inappropriate. So I think we need to go move forward with the police exam and
just make sure that we take care of those other matters as well. We've got to find a
way to take care of those other conversations as well and not just the police recruitment
issues. Yeah, I agree with you, John. The police list and I'm not sure about the dates,
the police list lasts for one year. It's a one year list of candidates for recruitment
to the police department. I don't know when, I don't know where we are on that list as
far as how close we are to that list being exhausted. But the decisions that are made
by this committee and other decisions are likely to go beyond our September 5th test
date, which could run into not having candidates, not having an eligibility list, not having
a recruitment list available at some point early in the fall or in the fall if we don't
go forward with this. Because again, the timing and the rules, if you read them, there are
time limits on the eligibility lists and recruitment lists. So we have to make sure that we don't
leave completely short. But I agree that the comment was appropriate for our discussion,
but I would like, I would agree with you, John. If you make that a motion, I will second
it if that's all right. I'll do my best to be succinct in the motion. My motion is this,
that the white card consideration be addressed at the earliest opportunity. However, I agree
that we need to move forward. >> Can I add just a friendly, like what you
said, that it be considered at the earliest convenience before new hires?
>> I'm okay with that. >> Just that. Yep. And I'm good.
>> I'm okay. >> Chief Dixon, where are we? Do you have
any idea where we are on the current list? >> We are towards the end of exhausting the
current list and that we would be kind of in a holding pattern until the next test.
>> Okay. So let's go ahead and vote on this one, Daryl, and then I have another item.
>> So John, you're seconding or allowing Lillian's friendly amendment. All right. Krista, could
you read the motion to us, please, ma'am? >> Yes, sir. So Commissioner Baines has motion
to approve the -- to approve with the white card addressed at the earliest convenience
before the new hires, but to move forward with the entrance exam posting.
>> Okay. Is that going to -- will that leave the police in alert at all as far as having
candidates? >> As I understand it, the Mayor's committee
is going to be looking at useful force and useful force policies. They are not charged
with looking at recruitment and training, although when it comes to useful force, there
will be a component of that. I don't know if the two will overlap or they will be getting
a report back on the recruitment process. So that would be my only -- my only issue
with that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We can at the same time be looking at
a parallel factor in our recruitment while the committee is going on, taking some suggestions
on our own and doing that, if that's okay with the commission.
>> And the language of Dr. Baines is saying for it to be addressed. It's not asking anything
other than the acknowledgement of the card. It's just saying to be addressed. I understand
that this whole motion wasn't even about hiring. My whole point was to listen to the people
that are putting forth the comment, moving forward with the test, which is absolutely
fine, but in the language that he said, it's just so that it can be addressed, so it can
be discussed, so that the public doesn't think, well, why am I going to submit comments if
they're not going to listen to them or discuss them or take them into consideration anyway?
>> Okay. >> This is Michael Croninger. I don't think the commission is saying that the police
department can't give a new test and can't begin hiring off of that list unless these
concerns are addressed. I mean, I know you want them to, but you're not putting forth
a prohibition that the department can't actually start recruiting people off of that list. Am
I misunderstanding that or? >> Yeah. There's no stoppage. We just need to
make sure that we take an earnest effort to discuss the man's concerns at our earliest
opportunity. >> And remember, and we will vote on this,
and remember also that we approve the recruitment list. The police brings that recruitment list
to us after the test is completed and graded, so we will see the list before they can begin.
We approve the list before they can actually begin hiring from it. Until at least our September
meeting and maybe even our October meeting, depending on when they get it done, so.
>> And I think the commission, if you're satisfied that those concerns have been addressed, I
don't think you have to certify that hiring list. I think you probably have the discretion
to not do it at that time, so I think you certainly do have safeguards in there to ensure
that these matters have been addressed. >> Okay. All in favor of the motion to approve
the POA, say aye. >> This is the motion that Dr. Baines made,
right? >> Yeah. Aren't they one and the same for
all intent purposes? >> Yeah. There was just different language
on it that Crystal, I think, or someone read. >> Well, then that's the --
>> That's this motion. >> They're all one and the same. The language
has changed, but yes, it is the new motion, but it still approves the proceeding with
the POA. >> Okay. I agree.
>> All in favor, say aye. >> Aye.
>> Opposed? 3-0. Okay. Again, just FYI, we were in live session and this person had come
in and everyone comes and makes a public comment. It's not on the agenda, and we are -- we do
not have to nor probably should we discuss any issue that comes as a public comment.
I mean, the normal procedure is to listen to the public comment, address it at the next
board meeting with it being on the agenda. So I mean, that's just the general procedure.
So basically, we have gone away from the general procedure from what we normally do. And that's
okay. I'm not -- I'm just an FYI that we normally would not discuss a comment, a public comment,
even if it was in person, them sitting right there. We would not discuss it. Okay.
Next order of business is the revisions to the local rules and regulations. You all received
those. So I will defer to staff on this. >> Provided you a document with the highlighted
changes. And so how I will do this is to start with each rule that was revised. If we need
to have discussion regarding any rules that were not changed but are in the local rules,
please let me know. And we can go over those too if we need to, if the commissioners have
any questions about it. The first rule that was revised was 003. And that will just simply
include the language that there was a recent meeting confer agreement that was approved
by city council on September 26th -- well, September 26th of 2006. And it was one subsequently
approved as well. Which allowed for the appointments to be made by the department head. Did anyone
have any questions regarding rule number three on appointment? All right. Next one.
>> Stephanie, 2006 is the correct date. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> That's probably the initial --
>> It should be September 26th. Thank you, commissioner.
>> September 26th, 2006. >> Of 2006. Yeah.
>> Okay. That's the original one. >> That's the original.
>> Okay. >> If you go on to eligibility, which is
under number seven. It's still under rule number three, but it's in parentheses seven
dealing with the eligibility list. There was a change in that. And I have it highlighted
on your paper there. And basically, it discusses that when a vacancy occurs at the beginning
of a position, the department head requests inviting from the director names of persons
and the director should certify and provide all of the names of the commissioners to the
department head. The eligibility list is created -- well, created considering the applicant's
oral interview board and the chief's oral interview board score and the chief's interview
score as outlined for Article 4, Section 7. And that's of the police meeting confer agreement.
Any questions on that? >> No.
>> No. >> So this is different from the fire department.
They only use the scores from their exams. This is saying that there's an oral interview
board and a chief's interview. This is for the police.
>> Let me go to the -- >> Yes.
>> Right about now, I'm actually missing my two screens on my computer.
>> Yes. >> Section 7.
>> Sorry, I have several different scores, several different papers here.
>> Okay. Yes, that's in the police one. Meeting confer agreement. And this is regarding the
beginning positions. >> I thought maybe we were talking about something
different, but I thought at the last meeting we were trying to make sure that the police
and fire were kind of doing the same type of thing or at least following the same protocol.
So you're saying police takes into consideration interviews and oral interview scores and all
of it, but fire doesn't? >> I can answer from the fire's perspective.
So in fire departments, you have the entry-level exam. It goes to the commission for approval.
That is the commission list. From that, the next steps in the hiring process for entry-level
is a two-part interview process. So it's an oral review panel of peers in the department
along with one civilian and then that counts 70% of the score and 30% is actually a chief's
interview. So you accumulate those and you take a group of 15 people and they are kind
of banded together. At the end of that interview process, they are recalculated, repositioned
based on interview scores as well. So that is what creates the eligibility list that the
department uses to hire off of. And they go straight down that list, 1 through 15, unless
there's a reason to bypass. >> That's only for the entry level?
>> Yes, ma'am. >> For promotional?
>> Correct. Any other promotional, we have to follow 143, but strictly the written exam.
>> Okay. But that's not the same for police? >> Police is a little bit different. Their
placement on the eligibility list is based on the written exam alone. And then they have
to get a cumulative score of 70 and higher. Promotional candidates would be subject to
a written exam and then they have an oral presentation as well that they have to do.
>> Is that entry only? >> For the entry only, for initially for a
beginning position, it's based on a written examination only. And then for promotional
candidates, they subject to a written examination as well as an oral presentation that they
have to do. And then those scores are sort of added together again at that point. They
will be ranked according to their score on the eligibility list. Any other questions
about that particular section? So both of those rules were based, it was changed based
on the meeting conferred agreements. >> Okay. Stephanie, can you help me? Maybe
I'm a little confused. So there's meeting conferred that the police department along
with the association, I guess, work together and they pass?
>> Yes. >> And then this is rules and regulations
from the commission? >> Uh-huh. Yes.
>> The two, how do we make sure that the two, like which one supersedes the other? Are they
not? Are they just? >> The meeting conferred agreement, because
it does obligate the city from a contractual obligation, it would supersede the commission
rules, basically. The reason why we're having to modify the rules is because we need to
make the local rules comply with what was agreed upon based on the meeting conferred agreement.
>> Okay. So we're taking our commission rules and regulations from the commission to reflect
what they've already passed? >> Yes. Basically. Yeah. Because we want to
make sure that both of them are in sync, they coincide with one another and not in conflict.
But if you ask me which one would supersede, it would be the meeting conferred agreement,
because it's a contractual obligation for the city at this point.
>> That's correct. >> Ours is what? Just guidelines?
>> Yeah. Pretty much guidelines. And then, you know, I think it's important also for
you guys to take a look at it, because obviously over the years or as you continue to review
cases, you may have some modifications that you want to do, you know, just based on your
proceedings and, you know, your rules that govern the commission. But we still have to
make sure that those rules are in compliance with the meeting conferred agreement and obviously
the Texas local government code as well and any other relevant statute or law.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Now, we're still on rule number
three. But we're going to go to number 11, where it has working day. That language has
been revised slightly because a question came up regarding working day. And this is just
in regard to accrued holiday vacation sick leave time, because as you know, the police
department as well as the fire department, many of the employees work various shifts.
And so a question came up as to how much their work -- what a working day would look like.
And that's in regard to accumulation or accrued holiday vacation and sick leave time. And
so that language was modified for clarification to show it's eight hours. All right. Next
rule is number eight. And this one here, language was just added to just sort of modify this
for modification for clarification purposes. And you'll see that in this particular rule,
we just added language. While the commission is not required to approve departmental rules,
no such departmental rules should be in conflict with the provisions of the civil service rules.
So we're just trying to make sure that there's no conflict of interest there.
>> And when you say civil service rules, you're saying chapter 133 of the Texas code.
>> No. We're talking about the civil service commission rules.
And what I can do is add clarification and make sure I include civil service commission
rules. I'll add civil service commission rules on there. Any other questions about that?
And we also included the city manager also to be involved with any changes in the rules
in that regard. All right. Now we're moving to rule number 14. This rule deals with appointment
and removal of person classified immediately below the department head. The revision that
we made in that regard is the first paragraph of that section. If the position are approved
by the city council, by ordinance, the chief of police department and chief of the fire
department are hereby authorized to appoint each person occupying the authorized position
in the classification immediately below that of the department head as allowed by state
law. And when I say state law, that's in regard to Texas local government code, chapter 143.
We also included language referring to the meeting confer agreement that was recently
approved dated for September 24th of 2019. And again, we mentioned it again in the last
paragraph there. We made reference to the article relevant in the meeting confer agreement
that was approved on September 24th of 2019. Any questions or concerns about that one before
we move on? All right. Well, rule number 23, A, subsection A, we made changes to that.
And in that one, based on the language that was approved in the police meeting confer
agreement that was approved by city council, a candidate must be 21 years of age and cannot
be any older than 45. And that's on the date of the entry level test. So they have to be
at least, and they can't be any older than age 45. And that's at the time that they take
the test. Any questions on that one? Okay. We're going to rule number 25, dealing with
the entrance exams. And this one here, we had some language that was changed. And we
basically, we didn't have a specific number and we didn't specify the number of months
that the eligibility list was good for. So for clarification purposes, we included that
the list would be at least good for at least 12 months, basically. The changes that we
also made in regard to the fire meeting confer agreement, they have some additional points
that new entry employees would get be awarded. And those additional points include one additional
points if they completed the independent school district high school fire program, and they
obtain a certification through that particular program. They also get an additional point
if they have the completion of the EMT program when they're in high school as well and receive
that certification from the Department of State Health Services. And lastly, they get
an additional point if they reside within the city of Denton. So that's based on the
approved fire and meet and confer agreement. So I included that language in this section
also. Stephanie, you may have caught these, but
I did see some typos in my addition out of high school. And obtained, not and obtained,
but and obtained certification. Just so you got those, make it as clean as we can.
Thank you, Commissioner. All right. And then if we go further down, the next paragraph
after that where it has when requested is pretty much the same, but we did make modifications
to that last paragraph that's highlighted there for you. And basically talks about,
and this is based on the police meeting confer agreement, candidates with the passing score
will be placed on the eligibility list in the order of their overall eligibility scores.
And that includes test scores plus any additional points. The entire eligibility list will be
provided to the police department at one time for further processing. And all those applicants
will be considered to have been referred at that time. New eligibility lists may be created
while an active list is being processed. The effective date of an eligibility list may
be set to coincide with the expiration of the eligibility list, a time period between
three and 12 months until a specified number of candidates for an academic class have been
hired in any combination of these. The condition that will determine when an active list may
be closed, other than by commission, must be determined prior to the posting of the exam.
Candidates may not be hired from an eligibility list that is graded after an existing active
eligibility list has been established until the existing list has been exhausted or expired.
An exception to this is when an officer, a city of police officer is reappointed as a
lateral insurance officer. And they may be processed as such and hired while an existing
eligibility list is in effect. And then it also goes on the state with the approval of
the Civil Service Commission, the Civil Service that recommend closed and eligibility lists
and counsel candidates processing if sufficient reason as determined by the commission is
to do so. And this is in accordance with the Article 4, Section 6 of the Public Meeting
Conferring Agreement. I know that was a long one. Anyone have any questions on that one?
So basically you're saying that they can't hire anyone from the new list until the previous
list that was adopted has been exhausted. Yes. But the further you go down on the eligibility
list, say on that initial list that had already been approved, I have a candidate that scored
a 75. And they met the minimum requirement and they're still right there waiting. But
in my new list, I have candidates that scored hundreds. You're saying they can't hire from
the new list until this other person has been hired? That's correct. And they have to be
hired if they passed? Not necessarily. They do have, you know, and we very seldom use
this. They do have what's called a bypass, you know, but there's some requirements under
the Texas Local Government Code before you can utilize that. But yes, typically, routinely,
they should, you know, pick from the list, the eligibility list. Okay. So let's say that
the 12 months has passed. You're saying it's better. So if I didn't hire that last person
on my first eligibility list and the 12 months has passed, that list has expired, and that
person just falls off, do they have to take the new another civil service exam to be added
to the new list? Yes. Once the list is exhausted, they would have to retest again. Okay. What
would be a reason for the commission to close the eligibility list? That last couple of
sentences you read. Yeah. And I'm not really sure, to be honest, right now. I don't think
we even look at that list after we approve it. Yeah. You could say this COVID-19 might
be an example of where we're not going to process because we can't have an academy class
now because of the close nature. So there may be circumstances where the commission
wants to do that. It just gives you the right to do something if you feel it's appropriate.
And if learning and reading the language, I mean, that would be the civil service director
would bring that list, bring the reason for closing out that list to us. And we could
probably if the reason seemed to be flawed, then we could say, no, we don't initiate the
closing of it. We simply approve it from the director, civil service director. Is that
correct? Yes. But obviously I would not, I mean, if I brought it to your attention, I
would need your approval because they early on would say with your approval, the civil
service director would be eligible to list. You would have a reason. Exactly. You would
have a reason to bring it to us. Yes. And there would be some special circumstances
for sure. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Nope. Okay. We're going to go to
rule number 25, reappointment after resignation. Again, this is based on language that was
added. If a person is being appointed as a lateral entry level police officer, the officer
may not be less than age 21 and must not have reached their 45th birthday. So that's just
for applicable to lateral positions. Then if we go to rule number 26 and number 27, that
was some changes there for clarification. It states that upon certification of the commission
list for fire procedures for filling a beginning position in the fire department shall be in
accordance with article four of the meeting confer agreement. And then it states upon
certification of the eligibility list for police procedures for filing a beginning position
in the police department shall be made in accordance with article four of the police
meeting confer agreement. Acceptance applies to officers hired under the modified hiring
process. That's described in article four of section 11, are for reappointment of police
officers. Any questions in that regard? Nope. Moving on to the next one. Rule number 27,
the probationary period. This one just provides that the commission hereby extends the probationary
period by six months for a total of 18 months for all persons appointed to the beginning
position in the police and fire department as provided under chapter 143.027. In the
next section that was revised of that same section is the meeting conferring is approved
by the city council on September 26th of 2006 and subsequent agreements, which mentions
September 24th, 2019. It included these provisions below. A, for police all new hires for police
positions hired lateral entry officer, applicants and reappointed officers will serve a one
year probation beginning on the date of being commissioned or recommissioned as a police
officer. This is inclusive of current police officers commission on or before the ratification
of the agreement. Any questions in that regard? Nope. Moving on to rule number 30. That language
was revised slightly just to make mention or reference the new meeting confer agreements
that was approved on September 24th of 2019. Then if we go to rule number 32, the number
was specifically changed here in terms of how many officers or firefighters have to
be present for a test to be taken. And we have to receive a minimum of two completed
notice of intent to test forms and that's for promotional examinations, not entry level
promotional examinations. Any questions on that? And if we go to rule number 32, section
B, there was revisions in that regard and that, and it talks about if in the event the
department head believes the security of a test has been compromised, the department
head at his or her sole discretion may administer a substitute test in compliance with Texas
local government code 143.32A. And then number four was added. Also, all remote tests shall
be conducted in compliance with 142.032 of the Texas local government code. All right.
Moving on to number 33 regarding promotional examination grades in regard to seniority points.
If you go down to section A, what we did there, we modified that first paragraph and the language
now has a firefighter or a police officer must score at least 70 on a written exam before
any seniority points are added for a total score on the eligibility list. Any questions
on that? Comments? No? Then rule number 34 regarding review and appeal of promotional
examination. We made some changes in that regard. And if you go to A, the new language
has upon completion of grading, each promotional candidate by himself or herself may review
his or her examination and answers. The examination grading and the source material for the examination
in the presence of a monitor designated by the civil service director. If filing an appeal,
the notice of appeal must be filed with the civil service director or designee in writing
by 5 p.m. on the 5th business day. And that's exclusive to the date of the posting of the
wrong scores. And they must include the basis for their appeal. Appeals shall be limited
to the quoted source material. If the appeal does not include the basis and is not limited
to the quoted source material, it will not be considered by the commission. And just
to confirm, that's for the fire department and the police department. Stephanie, of course,
this was the issue that we ran into. Yes. What do we mean by, what do they mean, I don't
know what pronoun to use, by the quoted source material? Do they mean the quoted material
from this? Or do they mean from the particular book, from the particular page of a particular
book? I mean, that became part of the issue in our last appeals that I would like to see
clarified for all of us. Yes. I'm sorry to answer our commission. That's all right. It
was just a point of angst. Some other page, other than one, you know, book that's in conflict,
but it's still on the list. So what do you mean by source list? I don't know if that's
a question for the local rules or meeting confer, or where that needs to be clarified,
but there's a, to not get too much into the history, this all started a few years back
when somebody brought in an internet article on a medication for EMTs that said it was
just as good as another, as the keyed answer. So anyway, how do we address this issue? I
think the commissioners all want this addressed. Yeah, okay. Chief Harris, if I could get some
input from you, because based on the meeting confer agreement for police, they edit language
that stated that the, you know, based on chapter section 143.034 of the Texas Local Government
Code, that the source material should be limited, the appeals should be limited to the quoted
source material attribute to the reference examination question. So I think they tried
to basically clarify what was meant by quoted material. So my question for you in regard
to the fire department, is it limited in that same manner, or is it different? I mean, what
is meant by the quoted source material? The intent behind the quoted source material was
to limit the question from the exact book. And that's the reason why we actually specify
this book and which questions come from that specific book, because I mean, taking these
tests for years, and you cannot write a test that does not have conflicting information.
Fire Service books out there, they do conflict. Anybody can tell you that unless we use one
book. So we try to narrow it down from this specific book, this is the question, even
though we know it could conflict with another source material book. But when we go to the
commission to print these books, we don't have time to vet all those books. That's after
the fact. We even have an outside party write these tests now as well. So one thing we've
done in the past, and I was just checking on Chief Skipper, sending me a text on this.
So we have actually included the book down to the page number where the question comes
from in the past. And I guess we didn't do that on this test. That's something we moved
forwards on. In the words, this test question comes from page three, off this book as well.
And that narrows that funnel down where they don't have the ability to find something in
the back of the book. But I mean, our hands are kind of tied on these test candidates.
They spend a lot of time. I mean, they may read these books, you know, five, six, seven,
eight times. So they have these memorized way better than the test writer themselves.
So you already have a disadvantage going into the pills, that they know this and they put
a lot of effort into the pills process. So it's two-part. Yeah, you study for the test,
but also you study and prepare for the pills. So there are intent on the quarter source
material may be a little vague where we need to narrow it down and even how we generate
the test to be specific. Book, page number, this question as well. That's the best I have
right now. I don't know if, you know, we're open to suggestions. We are. But we have some
very smart individuals out there that know how to, you know, make a very effective appeal.
The source materials are what you post at least 90 days in advance of the test, right?
Correct. So all the questions come from what's posted. It might be a book and a chapter and
that type of thing. So I mean, isn't that where any, I mean, when it says source materials,
isn't it what we've posted 90 days in advance? Yes, we have a list of emotional source materials.
So if we have eight books, there's eight different books listed. But then we go down into pulling
the questions out where you may have book one and book two may have very similar questions,
but you're asking from the book one. And that's where you specify this question is coming
from book one, this page, even though we all know, but two may conflict that same question
as well to answer. So when you ask a question, would it say something like, according to
Smith and Jones, blah, blah, blah? And then you ask the question. So the question's not
that specific that people would be confused as to which source material it's actually
coming from.
I know from experience, if you don't study enough, yes, you could be confused if you study
and know the conflicting difference between the two books. That is the big issue right
here is the fact that if you're not understanding the material and you start catching those
little caveats where they do conflict, yes, you have a good appeal. If you studied it
and you know that book one, book two conflicts, but I personally saw on there that this was
taken from book one, I know that answer. I know it's right as well versus the person
that, well, I think two's right also, I'm on appeal because it was in two. No, the intent
was this book one, we identified it was from book one, even down to the page number. It's
a process and just how we get to a better process to reduce the appeals.
May I say something? I don't know that, especially by giving eight books and those books are
thick books and they're books that you have to think through and that you have to read
carefully. And like you said, I mean, they take a long time studying. I don't know that
it's fair to ask a one-line question that is complete, just directly quoted from the
book and ask them to pick an answer from a certain page. But let's say that they pick
a different answer and that same answer is justified in the same book, just not on that
page number. I don't feel comfortable with saying this is from this book on this page
and this line. I just don't think that's good test taking or test giving, especially from
our appeals, from the appeals that I've seen. If the point was made, the police department
they write, so this is directly from this book and it gives you the author and then
it gives you 20 questions, right? Okay, that's fair. They know that it's from that book.
So if they use another book to justify their wrong answer, then obviously we can, with
a clear conscience, we can say no, because it was referenced on that, you know, above
this question was this book. But if a question is done that way, the strongest appeals that
I've seen that I get the most conflict out of just within myself is when a person comes
in, they see that book, they don't agree with the answer that you guys had from a specific
page, but they do make a point to say, but on this page in that same book is my justified
answer. Does that make sense? It makes sense, but the whole intent behind
this was try to reduce and limit the number of appeals that commissioners would have to
review and go through. I mean, that would kind of open up where there's a bigger funnel
on appeals. Now you're talking about the entire book versus down page number. I mean, am I
not correct? Chief Skipper, we list the book that the questions are from right now. So
if we have the first 15 set of questions are from book one. So is that-
But unless it's an open book test, how do you, you want to memorize every single line
from every single page? That's civil service. Well, there's no way
around it. That's state statute 143. We don't have the ability other than a memorization.
Yes. I mean, it's not the most efficient system out there. So yes, you're promoting people
off how well they study to memorize the material. So it's not just comprehending it. It is actually
memorization to be able to show conflicts from the front of the book to the back of
the book to different books as well. None of us can really, I mean, we don't necessarily
always agree with 143. It is what it is. It's our state law. We follow as well. That's the
reason why we feel very fortunate we was able to work with fire association. We change our
entry level process because it used to, on our entry level candidates, it was strictly
by a test. So you couldn't judge them on an interview panel or anything. They didn't really
hold much weight whatsoever. We couldn't move them around. It was like a pass or fail. Yeah,
you pass an interview, you didn't. Now we get to base entry level on that person, how
well they answered questions as that worked the job. We haven't transferred that into
the promotion process. We've added features they need to complete just to be able to take
the test, but we haven't got to the more subjective review in the test process. I know it's kind
of long-winded, but yeah. No, but that makes sense because that's helpful. So, but you,
it's not prohibited under 143 for you to make those modifications for promotional exams
as well to include an interview and to include, it is prohibited? Yes, and it states just
a civil service test examination as well. Unless we worked with a fire association to put something
in Meet Confer to go outside the normal boundaries of 143. We had to do that when we added all
the additions to the promotional exam. You have to have your fire officer choose certificates
and these other things because that is outside normal 143 requirements. So yes, any changes
to that would require adjustments to the Meet Confer contract. Did you give me a copy of
the 143? All right. That's the big book. Just for that language. That's the, that's the
big, the big book that you got when you became a commissioner. Yeah. What? I'm sorry. I didn't
hear what you said. I said it's a real, real, real big book. That we get about once every
two years or something like that, we get an update. Yeah. Okay. I just, I don't know.
I don't, I don't, my, my thing is on this, the language that you put on the revised where
it says appeals should be quoted source material. I think if you, if you, even if you took the
quoted word out and just said limited to the source material that is referenced or however
you want to write it so that we know that it's the source material goes with this question.
You know what I mean? And it can be quoted, the defense from, you know, whenever the,
the department's right there, justification of upholding the key is that it's a direct
quote. Okay. Well, that's fine. But if, but if a officer or a firefighter comes and they've
put enough time that says, yes, this is a quoted source, you know, this is a direct
quote from page 153, but on page 277, you know, this is this and this and this and this
justifies my answer. And so there's, they're not saying that this answer was wrong, but
they're saying that this answer is also right. Then if that's written into that, you know,
I mean, that would be, I think that would make it more fair because then we put parameters
around it. We're not saying to go through other outside books, not referenced on this
25 questions the department said, but we are given a little bit of latitude where it's
a good appeal. They're saying that it's justified. I understand that it was on page 156, but
I didn't read when 56 says carefully, but I did really read, you know, 300 and they
make a good solid appeal. Then I think that should be allowed. But, but to, to ask them,
those books are like five, 600 pages and we're asking them to, to take a direct quote from
basically 4,000 pages when it's that many books. So my, my only suggestion would be
is, would that even be possible? Does it make sense? Does it matter to take the quoted part
and to reference source material?
I mean, from my perspective, I'm fine with that language, whatever the commission, you
know, really desires to be on there. Like I said, the whole intent was to try to reduce
the amount in scope of the appeals and just try to make it more streamlined. This is really
their only opportunity. They take a test and the only opportunity to make any justice modifications
is through that they'll process with the commission. And I don't mind, I don't mind us working
and helping with those appeals. I mean, I'm thinking, man, they took all this time. They
took the test. They're the ones that's, and that's also another thing. When they come
and they present a cohesive appeal, they spend the time, they sit through the whole, you
know, two hours, three hours that it takes us to go through everybody else's appeals.
And then if they're two or three minutes, you know, we hear them out. And if they've
gone through all that trouble and they can present a cohesive argument, a good argument,
a persuasive argument, then we should, and we should approve their appeal. But that would,
that would give us a little bit more than just saying, well, it's quoted from page 156
on this book. So then when, when you say that as a commissioner, I feel like I'm locked
in. Well, if it's quoted and the department said it's quoted, then I don't have anything
to say. I don't even need to think because you're already, you're already boxing me in.
Well, and I think the intent behind that was to remove some of the subjectivity as well
because there's a lot there. If you don't really try to zero in on where that test question
was generated from. That was the intent behind it. But like I said, we're flexible. We can
change whatever really kind of the commission's desire.
I think you're zeroing in by saying this book, this author. I don't like the page.
I think that if you, if you still put the book, the source material at the top, where
the questions one through 15 are from book one, but still allow, if, if book three says
something in conflict to that or addition to that, then more conflict, then, then that
should be a commissioner's decision to as to whether that's a valid approval or not.
So it's still the material that was published 90 days ahead of the test, but it's not necessarily
chapter, verse of a particular book because that's a lot of memorization for when they
don't have books out on the field anyway. But if they've got a valid, valid appeal outside
of the, the quoted book, I don't think that's a problem personally. And we've done that
before. We've had more problems since we've gone to the, it's direct quote out of the
book than we had when we were allowing them to quote material from the source material,
meaning the whole list.
I appreciate that. Let me just add some, so I actually have a personal example because
we all came up to this department taking these tests as well. So I had a scenario where I
studied and I knew the conflict between different books and went to the commission and I'd got
that question right because I knew that it was conflicting, but I knew that it was pulling
out this book. That's just the way it was even worded because I had studied that much
and knew the language exactly. I even kept a folder over the conflicts, the quantum but
free conflicted here as well. I knew the information. I had somebody else come in the department
that didn't know that that and they argued, but in this book, it says it also it's similar
to it. The commission ruled in favor gave that person a point. I didn't lose no ground,
but I didn't gain no ground. That person gained a point on me about honestly not knowing the
material as well as what I did it. Now that's just one scenario out of a hundred, but I'm
just trying to say what you don't see on the other side is people do put the time in and
study. I mean, we try to get these lists approved as quick as possible, so we give them up to
six months to study. This isn't nothing in common. Some of the departments up in the
Northeast Coast as well, they only give exams every two years. So these people take a year
to study because it's that important because a promotion is based off a hundred question
test. It's that important to them. So I see both sides, but I want you to see both sides
also that the people that put time into it, they can take the test. They can show you
the difference as well, and they appreciate something that is more strict, that's more
objective as well versus kind of open it up to what somebody is a good arguer that can
bring in these different components as well. Now they're kind of bringing validity to their
appeal whenever this person hears it, but I studied, I knew it. I didn't have to do that
work after the appeal. I'll put the work on the front. So just a little inset.
I think some of these officers, too, I think they learn more from the appeals than they
did from studying initially for the first test.
Some do more effort into the appeals than actually studying. Yes, you are correct.
And let me just remind everyone that in the police meeting confer, they did include language
that if there was a reference where the answer to the question is coming from, based on the
meeting confer agreement, you can't consider, the commission cannot consider information
outside of that reference quoted material. Okay, but reference quoted material, is it
that one sentence, or is it the book? What's the reference material?
It's not the book. Let's say, for example, and I don't know, I'm gonna make up something.
Let's say, for example, you had a book called Police Responsibility, and at the top of that
question, they reference that's on page 10, paragraph three. Well, when that person appealed
and you're considering their appeal, based on the language that I understand from the
police meeting confer agreement, you will be limited to that reference section. If the
person said, well, I found another answer in book two, or even in the same book, but
it's on a different page number, then that was referenced. Based on the meeting confer
agreement, you would still be limited. That's my understanding.
So my question is, on those, then why even bring them to the commission? Those shouldn't
even be allowed, questions shouldn't even be allowed to be appealed because you're already
locked in, you already know the answer. Yeah, I think that's part of the question,
because then if that's the case, then the commission serves no function.
And that goes back to us limiting our officers and our fighters to memorize, which is great.
They need to memorize certain guidelines and protocols, but I need somebody that's gonna
have critical thinking skills on something that they've never seen before, but that they
can draw from all these different experiences and they can make a solid argument and follow
through. Like, that's kind of scary that all we're asking them to do to be promoted is
to memorize. That's actually state 143 statute. That's what
we're having followed, though, because we don't have exceptions on our promotional process.
Yeah, but like you said, you modified them for entry. So why not be consistent and follow
it for entry and promotional across both departments, not just police does this and fire does this.
Chief Skipper is trying to get in the word, and I'd like to get in the word. So go ahead,
Councilman. No, I'll follow you.
I was just gonna say that along Chief Hedges' personal experience, you know, we study those
books as hard as we possibly can to top out that list. And anytime the commission rules
against a question or they rule in favor for an appellant, that affects the person who
topped out that list. We all go in that test with the same ability to score a hundred or
not score a hundred. You know what I'm saying? So afterwards, when we go in for our appeals,
they have almost as much time as they want sitting down at a desk reading and looking
over every word of those books to determine if they have an argument or a solid appeal.
So it's always after the fact, and it's not the actual knowledge that they presented in
that testing room. So they're taking a lot of time to scour books to try to find every
little argument they possibly can find to try to sway three commissioners' opinion about
a test question, as opposed to the fact that they just got the question wrong.
Well, my comment is a selfish one. My comment is selfish. While I want to be a good commissioner,
I don't want to spend as much time as the test takers do to learn all that material.
And if we expand the parameters, I've got to spend more time, so I'm making sure that
the answers are correct. So I'm torn between wanting to do a good job and not wanting to
spend as much time studying as they do. So this is my dilemma. I mean, this last group
of exam, it took a lot of time to prepare so we can come into the test. So if we expand
the opportunities for answers, it's expanding more time. And I understand we want critical
thinking. I have a difficulty with just a one-liner. But at the same time, I'm not
sure I'm committed to doubling or tripling my time of investment in reading all that
material. So that's my dilemma. Thank you for letting me in.
To kind of get us, I mean, I think this is an important discussion that needs to happen.
Because right now, I'm not sure there is an answer that's going to make everybody happy.
My question, to get us kind of back on task for the local rules, is since we can't come
up with a good definition of what the source material is at this point, can we leave the
language and have further discussions on this? It would seem to me that any further discussions
are also going to have to be in coordination with meet and confer. Because some of these
specifications are meet and confer specifications. I'm looking at your contract, the police contract
that uses source materials. I think it's perfectly fine for the commission to go ahead and approve
the rules. And then you can still revisit that one if that's unclear to you. You don't have
to hold up approving everything just for delaying it if you don't want to.
Thank you. That's what I'm trying to say, is that can we live with the language that
says the source material and then try to go dig into that a little later in another meeting
and try that again, because that's also going to mean fire, police, meet and confer will
have to all be on the same page on any changes that we make on that. So can we for purposes
of this document, can we just live with quoted source material?
I could live with source material if you take off the word quoted. You could say referenced.
You could say referenced to say that it's referenced in reference to those particular
questions. All right. Where's that language, Stephanie?
It's under rule number 34 and it is the one, two, three, or fourth highlighted paragraph
in yellow. I'll read it again for the record. And keep
in mind this language is being included in here again, because if you look at article
four, well, hold on, what's it, article four, article five, section one B of the police
meet and confer agreement, this is the language that was included in the agreement. In regard
to fire and their meet and confer agreement, they didn't make any changes. Let me double
check. Okay. Yeah. Fire Dia II. So I don't know, I mean, Michael, you can correct me
if I'm wrong. Okay. In the fire meeting confer agreement,
they referenced that under section seven of article five. And they have appeals from the
commission under section 143.034 of the Texas local government code should be limited to
quoted source material attributable to the reference examination question. Then if you
go to police meet and confer agreement, and theirs is under article five, one B under
limited scope of appeal, they have that same language. So in actuality commissioners, we
can't say anything. No matter the contract, Stephanie said the contract is what controls
even if you took out the word quoted from your civil service rules, it's really going
to be meaningless in a sense because the contract supersedes your local rule. And we will revert
back to the contract. Right. And why do we then why do we have this
department of rules where you say that the commission are required to approve department
of rules, but no such department of rules should be in conflict with the provisions
of these civil service rules. Is that supposed to be kind of like a checks and balance or
so or you're saying that it doesn't matter that really any rules that we adopt have to
just fall under what has already been outlined. It's like this is supposed to be like we work
together. Like what you're saying, you just already decided your rules and we have to
follow under those like we can't even question when I read your rules. When I got here, the
part you just talked about department rules kind of implied, excuse me, that the needed
to approve the police department's internal rules. And I suggest to just clarifying that
the commission doesn't have to do that. The meeting confer process does give the association
and the city the ability to override state law. And that's what they did. And the police
department doesn't have the authority to override the civil service rules, including your rules.
So if you're saying that you're not you're not when I'm understanding what you're saying
is that we don't even have a elected stand on when we're bringing these things up because
you're because it's already under it's already been adopted in the language that you already
have. I just need to know like where you are because if we're making arguments that really
don't need to be made, then then I mean, that's the way it is. And we probably have to appeal
to a different organization or the state or whatever, you know, the place to make those
arguments. I still think probably the the commission's role isn't to interpret the meet
and confer agreement. But I think it's probably still going to come back to you to end up
making having this discussion about what is the appropriate source material, there's probably
really no way to get around that. But I agree with Stephanie, I think ultimately, in the
police contract, it's it has a specific reference of, you know, the quoted material, however
the language was and I think ultimately, that's probably what's going to control. But ultimately,
I think the commission if you don't think the question was fair, it's confusing. I do
think you have the ultimate authority to rule whether it's a valid question or not. Ultimately,
I think it's going to come down to you folks. Well, the only the only authority we would
have is to accept all the answers. We can't throw a question out anymore. Yeah, I think
the contracts specify that you can send a message to the representative to say that's
a really bad question. How about we never see that one again. But as far as scores,
we cannot throw out a question. So regards, that's based on the fire meeting confer. I
think for police, you're you're able to still do that. I don't think they made any modifications
in that regard. Yeah. Well, one thing to do might be when they're constructing the test
to ensure that internally, there's no questions that in one one page has one answer and later
in the book, there may be something conflicting. So maybe the test construction can try to
avoid this situation arising. So I think we just need to proceed. I think we've made a
point, but I don't know that we've made any any headway. That's that's we're sort of stuck
with this. Can we agree that we still need to work on this later and move on? I think
we can we can agree that we can talk about it. But again, it's going to come down if
the decision is going to be made out of our hands. It's going to be made between the associations
and the city. So yes, I think we have to move on because we can't answer it and we can't
change it. But other than that, we can talk about it. I think I think I think Mr. Chair,
that there is a sense of frustration that either we're going to be using our our intellect
or we're going to just use a one liner. And I think we need to we need the three of us
as commissioners, we need to get happy with what we're doing. Or we need to do something
else. So I think that's the conversation. I would not agree with you any I couldn't
agree more with you. Thank you. If we use our intellect, we probably don't need to be
on this commission. Right, you just have to memorize the answer. So I wouldn't say that.
So all right, well, I think we've made a point, hopefully, Jason and whoever police Chief
Skipper, Jason, those guys, you know what, you know, our frustration at this point. And
yeah, Mr. Chairman, I do. I mean, if, if you'd allow me just a minute, I mean, I can at least
give you my two cents from the from our association perspective, because I understand your frustration.
And I know the intent was not to take away any of the authority that the commissioners
you as commissioners have. Really, from from my perspective, it was to limit questions
to when I say quoted source material, is that particular book, as opposed to a particular
page in a book, and if there's conflict in that book, I would argue that's a valid appeal.
The part about throwing out a about being able to throw out a question over the years
and I know, Mr. Chairman, you've been involved in this for some time, as Mr. Baines, and
when you start throwing out questions, it adversely impacts a candidate got it correct.
And that's where that's kind of where our your discussion was. So even though you got
it correct, you shouldn't be adversely impacted. Now you started looking at fractions of points.
And that was kind of a big driving force behind it. It was a bad question. Then you accept
all answers, you move on, everybody gets credit, and it doesn't adversely impact someone or
benefit one over another for a bad question. Yeah, that was chairman. No, I understand.
And over the years that throwing out the question is the last possible alternative, simply because
it does, ever how small it does impact the overall value of every other question. And
we don't want to do that. But sometimes they send us some really bad questions. But I appreciate
it, Jason. Thank you very much for that input. Yes, sir. So I think we need to move on with
this and leave it as it as it is quoted from the meet and confer. And then we can decide.
I mean, I, I can live with the, the interpretation that it's from the quoted book. And the book
must be from the list. If that's if that's what we can live with, and I'm fine with that.
It's quoted from the book. And the book is on the list. So we can go to the internet
and find 17 other alternatives that are not in the books. But it could be it could be
a question that's in another part of the book, a conflict that's in another part of the book.
And we can rule on that, whether that's a valid appeal or not, then we have a rule,
then we have a then we have a role to play. But anyway, we've got to move on. So Michael,
can you confirm what the based on the language that's in the meeting confer agreement? The
commission's job isn't to interpret the contract, they can apply the contract. And let me just
say this. If there's any if the contract language is unclear, the chiefs can always sit down
with the association presidents and try to clarify that I think that may be appropriate
for a memorandum of understanding to avoid this. And I can talk to the chiefs after we're
done, maybe trying to do that to avoid exactly problem you're talking about.
I think we've met over the last this last set of appeals. There was a great deal of
frustration among the commissioners. And simply for this, this reason, if we can come to some
understanding clarification of that, that would be greatly appreciated. And we can move
on. So can we move on in the in the
May I just say, may I just say that I just want to say this, just to make sure that everybody
understands the frustration came because we want to do right by the firefighters. It's
not the frustration that for any other reason, I want to be consistent and I want to be right
by each of these people that are coming forward to look to us for for clarification or for
an answer. So that's where the frustration comes from. It's not from anything else, at
least for me. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Okay.
All right. So just the confirmation is the commissioners are you all in agreement with
keeping the language as is for now? I'm okay with that. Yes.
Okay. I'm moving on to the second, well, the next paragraph where it says promotional examination
multiple choice questions appeal to the civil service. You'll be sustained or overruled
and in actuality or overruled should be crossed out are thrown out that should be crossed
out as well. And the new language for that to replace those terms is disqualified by
a ruling issued by the civil service commission. Say that one more time, Stephanie. I'm sorry.
I'm just going to read the new language as it should be because it's still had overruled
in here and that shouldn't have been in there. Okay, the promotional examination multiple
choice questions appeal to the civil service commission will be sustained or disqualified
by a ruling issued by the civil service commission. So the word overruled should not be in there?
No. And this is only in regard to, you know what, I'm sorry, that's an error on my part.
Throw them out. That language is going to stay the same because
it's only applicable to, it's only applicable to the police.
We don't disqualify in throwing out a question and disqualifying a question the same thing.
We accept other answers. In consultation with, in consultation with
the legal counsel, using the term thrown out, just trying to come up with a better term
and disqualified, disqualifying a question was a term that was suggested.
Okay, because you're saying disqualified for on Article 3.
Just to replace the term of being thrown out, the question being thrown out.
Okay. Okay, let me go back because I think I probably
have made some confusion here. We're going to keep the language as is, that's
in red because, and I'm just going to add language that this is applicable for police
because what changed here is that with the fire and meat confer agreement that was approved
by city council September 24th, it states they had added language that all test questions
will be graded with either one best answer correct, multiple answers correct or all answers
graded correctly, which means a question cannot be thrown out for a fire appeal, but for police
they didn't make any changes in that regard. So based on that, you would have the ability
to still throw out a question for an appeal question. Does that make sense?
There's two standards there. Right, yes, one standard for fire, one standard
for police. Exactly. And so I will remind you as we do
appeals, I will remind you sort of like a tip sheet that that standard is applicable
depending on what kind of appeals that you're reviewing, whether it's police or whether
it's fire. So I'm going to, that language in red will stay the same, but I'll put some
language in parenthesis only applicable for police and then the language below that starts
off with the fire and meat confer agreement approved by city council, that language would
stay the same. We're trying to get away from that. It's something that fire has expressly
stated now. I'm not sure I'll have to ask Chief Dixon in terms of what the police department
stance is on that. Critical for fire because they included that language in the meeting
confer agreement. Chief, do you have any comments you might want to add regarding that particular
provision about throwing out a question? Chief Dixon or Chief Hedges, either one of you?
No, I don't. I think the association is going to have to be brought into it, but I personally
don't have any problems with it. I think it should be within the commission's program.
I guess the question wasn't just for this particular question. I thought along the lines,
I thought the goal was to get both to kind of be on the same page, both meeting confer
for fire and police. Yeah, for us to get on the same page, it would take both associations
agreeing to the language for both. So that would be something we'd have to bring up in
our next negotiating period. Okay. I mean, other than the fact that we can't, and again,
we've tried not to throw out a question, disqualify a question as a matter of course anyway, except
all four answers as being correct question and then send the message that that's a really
bad question, kind of a thing. So, but it might not be a bad idea to do this again to
look at that language on that to make sure that is parallel. Okay. All right. Any additional
questions about section 34? I move on to section 30, number 35, rule 35 and 36. And in this
particular, in these sections, it was just clarification added more so than anything
for rule number 35 language was added if adopted by the commission. And that's in regard to
the director show provides the absentee balloting in an alternate promotional system in a police
department. And then rule number 36 corrected that to include promotional appointments for
the ranks of deputy chief and assistant chief in accordance with article six of the meeting
conferring agreement. Stephanie, I have a question, please. Yes. When you says if adopted
by the commission, is that you or is that us? No, that would be you all, actually. Thank
you. All right. Now moving on to the next one. Well, let me let me ask one real quick.
It's probably probably to the chief. So we haven't had police appeals recently. So it
looks like you've kind of restructured your, your, your rankings. Sergeant and lieutenant
were going to deputy chief and assistant chief. Is that what I'm reading in this? Right. We
haven't restructured it. Those were actually made before I got here. They added the assistant
chief and deputy chief ranks, or they kind of restructured how those lay out. But those
were established, I believe in like August of 18. So that's, those are the new titles
in lieu of sergeant and lieutenant, or are there no sergeant and lieutenant. So it goes
from officer to sergeant to lieutenant to deputy chief, assistant chief, and then chief
of police. Okay. So there are four, four levels. Correct. Okay. That didn't have any, I just,
that was from my own edification. Okay. We're next, we're on rule 52 regarding disciplinary
suspensions. And this was just clarification. If you look at number section, subsection
two, the department head may not suspend an employee based upon an act that occurred more
than 180 days. We remove or crossed out, deleted the in the past language and just replaced
it with prior to the date the employee suspended, as self as may be provided for uncertain criminal
investigation. So we just clarified the language a little bit there. Then if you go to subsection
three of that same rule, it state, we changed the language to state that with the police
and fire meeting confer agreements approved by the city council on September 22nd, 2009,
the written statement does not have to be filed with the commission unless the police
officer or the firefighter appeals the written statement to the commission. And that's referenced
the article nine, section one of the fire agreement and article seven and section three
of the police agreement. The language that was added is if the police officer or firefighter
appeals, the written statement must be filed with the commission within 120 hours of the
filing of the notice of appeal. Subsequent agreements, including the most current agreements
approved on September 24th, 2019 for both police and fire continue to allow. Okay, any
questions?
- I have a question on just on that B, number two, the department head may not suspend an
employee based upon an act that occurred more than 180 days prior to the date the employee
is suspended. Wouldn't it be prior to the date of the act?
- That's the language from the statute. So if you suspended me today, then it can't be
for an act that occurred more than 180 days before. So I just put that in just trying
to, that's what the statute says prior to the date the employee is suspended. So.
- Okay, so the department head may not suspend an employee based upon an act that occurred
more than 180 days prior to the date the employee is suspended.
- It kind of looks backwards. If I'm suspended today, it's 180 days ago. Yeah, the statute
is kind of confusing itself.
- All right, any other questions about that rule? Okay, then we go to rule number 53.
We're going to appeal of the disciplinary suspension. If you go under section number
three, we added language, only temporary and definite suspensions and voluntary demotions
may be appealed to the commission. Employee dissatisfaction resulting from a transfer
or reassignment of duties or a policy decision in of itself are not appealable. So we just
sort of clarified what an officer or an employee can appeal and what they cannot appeal. Okay.
And rule number 53, subsection I3, we made changes in that regard. And it's under number,
oh, let me refer, I don't know if I get, let me put that right.
Okay. In regard to rule number 53, subsection I3, the language is only for number three,
it says only temporary and definite suspensions, voluntary demotions may be appealed. Sorry,
I don't know what that one, you know, 54. Okay, here it is. For I3 under rule number
53, the new language is under section three of that, employees and their legal representative.
So we added the term legal to clarify that language as to what representatives may obtain
a copy of the personnel file. We included the language that it's the city's personnel
file on the employee. I'm going to start back over reading this entire paragraph. Employees
and their legal representatives may obtain copies of matters contained in the city's
personnel file on the employee, which may include disciplinary records. The employee
may be asked to sign a release form as a demonstration of the employee's consent that their legal
representative shall receive a copy of such records, even if the records are confidential
in nature. So that's the new language. And then we change number four also, and basically
in that language it talks about a subpoena adduces ticum. And basically we included language
that requests for subpoenas must be filed on the 11th day prior to the scheduled hearing
in order to be processed in a timely manner. Any questions?
I just want to tell you why we changed that. The statute says firefighter police officer
must make the request before the 10th day, before the date the commission hearing is
held. That's real confusing. In Austin, we changed that to make it clear the day before
the 10th day before is really the 11th day. So we were just trying to make that clear.
All right. And then the next rule that was changed is rule number 53 and eight. The revised
language is a copy of the department's disciplinary action, a copy of the employee's request for
appeal and the record of the proceedings, a copy of the exhibits submitted together with
a copy of the final decision shall be filed in the commission records. Any questions about
that one? All right. Moving along. And if we look at rule number 56 in regard to procedures
after felony indictment or misdemeanor complaint, we modified the language some. The new language
has a conviction or deferred adjudication of a felony may result in the firefighter or
police officer being terminated from his or her position. There was language regarding
no hearing before the civil service commission or independent hearing examiner will be provided.
That language was deleted. Yeah, but you went from saying a felony shall result in the firefighter
being terminated or police being terminated. It should be may result, may result. Sorry
about that. I might have misread it. It should be. No, yeah, that's what I'm saying in the
original language. It said that they would be in the new language. You're saying they
may be. Yes. But you're saying that for felony and misdemeanor, are you saying that for felonies?
Yeah. And the only reason the language, more than likely, if they're actually convicted
and there's enough evidence, then more than likely the firefighter or police officer would
likely be terminated. But as a civil service employee, they have a right to a hearing.
It's just a due process, right? That's one of the purposes of being civil service protected.
Even if it's an action that is, you know, obviously a felony is a very serious offense.
So if a person is convicted, you know, they can still request a hearing. So hearing in
front of who? A hearing examiner or they can request a hearing in front of the commissioners.
So because that was deleted. So how would they know when that language is deleted from
the original? Oh, it's in Chapter 143. Okay. They will refer to Chapter 143. So conviction
or deferred adjudication of felony may result from definitely getting fired to maybe getting
fired with a felony. It just depends on what the chiefs are recommending. More than likely,
I would think they would recommend an indefinite suspension. Given the circumstances, I'm not
100% sure, but I would anticipate that's probably what they would recommend. And so it would
be just like your normal procedures, disciplinary appeals procedure. So the discretion is up
to the chiefs? In terms of disciplinary that they want to take? Yes. For a felony? Yes.
I'm making myself note here. Who makes those decisions? I don't know. I don't know. That's
a lot of discretion. I mean, I don't see that recommending an indefinite suspension, to
be honest. But, you know, obviously we had to look at it from the legal standpoint. And
I think the conviction of a felony for a police officer, the licensing agency, will revoke
your license. So you wouldn't be able to be a police officer anymore. Yeah, I was gonna
say that's correct. Teacole won't hold your license if you're convicted with felony anyway.
In any criminal conviction, I'm gonna recommend indefinite. And then we'd fire him for losing
his license. So why do we change the language? Again, remind me? Just to make sure we adhere
to the due process that's required by law. All in reason. They're not at will employees
or civil service protected employees, which normally give them the right to a hearing.
Any other questions on that? Now we're moving to rule number 72, regarding military leave
of absence. And this language has been clarified, modified. If you look at it, it states a promotional
vacancy is created when a firefighter or police officer is granted a military leave of absence
to initially enter a branch of the United States Military Service. The city does not
consider a military leave of absence as a vacant position when a firefighter or police
officer is recalled to active military duty. Therefore, the chief is not required to fill
the position. Any questions on that one? Okay. And they're not required, but are they allowed?
Yeah. So yes, they were allowed to talk about the chief and fill in the position. Yes. Okay.
And then rule number 86, but in regards to political activities, we have some original
language and reviewing the Texas local government code, that language was not aligned with the
Texas local government code. So simply what I did for that is just simply deleted it.
And basically what will occur if anybody have any questions about, you know, running for
office, you know, they can refer to the Texas local government code, section 143. And I
believe that was the last rule. Did you cover rule 86, the political? Which one? 086. Yeah,
the one about, I just simply deleted it. And I explained about that it wasn't consistent
with the Texas local government code chapter 143.086. So it was deleted. So chief skipper
can't run for mayor yet. And so based on our review of these rules,
what I'm asking is that the commissioner, based on our discussion is I'm asking for
the commissioners to approve the revisions to the civil service commission, local rules.
I make a motion that we approve the amendments as presented. I'll second. Sir, discussion.
What the record show that I still don't like that one that we're talking about this material.
But to the right people, but anyway, other discussion, all in favor of the approval of
these of these rules, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carries unanimously. Okay, well, I will get
the commissioners a clean copy of the rules. Send it to you for your final records. Okay.
Next, next item on the agenda. We had an agenda, didn't you? Let's talk about future civil
service meeting meetings. What's coming down the pike? Anything from police? We've covered
fire recently. So hearing nothing. There's nothing. Sorry, my phone. There's nothing
coming from police. Okay. So why don't we just let Crystal contact us when they're when
we're ready to meet again? I think at some point, continue this discussion that we had
realizing full well that it's more meeting confers than it is ours. But I think we can
still talk about ways to make our fairer and still do what you do. So I do have a question
for you. Yes, sir. I think by some some rule of law, we're prohibited from having more
than two of us congregate at the time. Is that correct? Commission? We can't to ever
service are not supposed to congregate because it's it's constituted constitutes a meeting.
The reason I'm asking about this is because I don't want to wait the September to have
a substantive conversation amongst the three of us. So how do we do that? You'd have to
do that in a in either a special call meeting or a regular one. You can't just meet at
the coffee shop, two of you and talk about it that'd be considered a you'd have a forum
and that would be illegal to violate the Open Meetings Act. We could be in the open air.
That'd be open. Yeah, you can meet. You understand my concern is that there's a certain momentum
we have here and certain urgency. I feel for personal for a variety of personal reasons.
I'd like for us to find a way Mr. Chair that we have a call meeting so we can discuss this
matter and see if we can come to some resolution among ourselves. And then we can convey that
concern to the appropriate parties. I think any meeting if the two or three of you are
going to have a meeting on business, it would have to be posted. You just can't do it in
secret. Right. Right. That was my whole intent was that rather than wait till September to
do something, I think we'll initiate it somehow and come up with some dates where the three
of us can get together and we'll get it posted and make it official so that the appropriate
persons need to be there while we're having our conversation. I noticed on my calendar
I had the 24th of June and maybe that's simply because that's where we normally met is that
last Wednesday of the month. I still have that on it on my calendar. If we wanted to
try to look for something at that particular point, because it's an open meeting, if we
are still doing things virtually next in two weeks, let's say, I assume it has to be televised
and everything. Yes. Yes. Even if it's a closed meeting? We would have to open it up in regular
session before we could go to closed. So we can open it, start it and go to closed. It
still has to be televised while it's closed? No. I mean, for a closed meeting it would
be you going into executive session and you... No. I know that she's saying we open it, it's
televised while it's open, then we go into closed and y'all stop. Correct. We have to
go into executive session. My question would be, and I'll defer to our attorneys, what
constitutes valid executive session? Yeah, the question. What other issues does, but
what other things? I mean, for purposes of the Civil Service Commission, it would be
mainly if you had a legal question and needed some legal advice. I don't know what exception
would allow you to go into executive session to just discuss the rules. I can look at it,
but I'm not aware of an exception. Could you do this for us? I have several requests. The
24th, I have the City of Benton Economic Development's board meeting that day, so I'm unavailable.
I think we need to submit several options for ourselves and then also get to hear from
the city attorney as to if this request can fit into some proviso that allows us to have
that kind of a meeting and then let us know officially and then we can choose a date.
You're basically wanting us to, us three to talk so that we can agree so that we don't
have, so that we're kind of on the same page when we're looking at these appeals. I don't
think we can do that behind closed doors. I don't think we should do that behind closed
doors. We can have this discussion, but I don't think it needs to be an executive session.
I think it needs to be just out there. I'm okay about being out there. I'm okay. I just
didn't know the protocol. Yeah. I still consider myself new, so sorry Chair. It's okay. Could
you send out some possible, look into some dates, especially if we're going to do it
sooner rather than later, we probably will still be doing it virtually. Therefore, we
need to look at all of the ramifications of that. So could you and Stephanie look into
that and Michael, if you can kind of help us know whether we can or cannot go into any
kind of executive session. Let me ask you this. What is it that you want to discuss
in executive session? Well, I think we want to have this discussion and interrupt me if
I'm incorrect here, commissioners. We want to continue this discussion that we were having
about the materials and the procedures with appeals. I'll look into it. Yeah. If you're
asking me for legal advice, we could do that in executive session. But if it's just the
three of you talking it out, I don't think we can, but I'll get a definitive answer and
let Stephanie know. Okay. All right. Well, so if we can get maybe some dates that fit
everybody else's schedule, including the city, then we can send us some optional dates, put
it on the calendar. Okay. Can I ask a question though? If we're just trying to get on the
same page, I mean, I think the most that we can do is what express our concerns to the
people that go with associations and the people that are representing the departments, right?
Because those changes have to ultimately happen there before we even do anything, right? This
is basically, mostly this is meet and confer. It would have to be, we can express our concerns
to the chiefs and to the associations as they move forward in their next meet and confer
discussion, which is probably what, a year away? A year, three years away? Yes, it's
a three-year contract, so it's three years away. And so in the meantime, there really
isn't much to change. Right. I'm just trying, I'm trying to understand that process because
I even had a question about the points that the fire department added, because those have
to be made through the, or approved through the meet and confer, right? From the department
association, right? So those, the process would be like for someone to give you, like
the thing that I, let me just be transparent. One of the things that I have asked like the
police is to hire people who are bilingual. So whenever I saw that a point was added because
you live in Denton, a point was added because you went through the DISD fire program, I
think those are great additions, but I would think as a, as a community member of a community
that's 25, 26% Hispanic, that maybe a point could be added if a person is bilingual. Denton
ISD has a bilingual seal that whenever graduates graduate from Denton ISD schools, high schools,
they can have that seal. So if that seal comes out, that could also be a point for, for one
of these, or if they don't go through Denton ISD schools, that they would take an exam
to prove their proficiency, both in oral and written Spanish. So you know what I mean?
So like those types of suggestions, the commission, you know, suggest those, who, what's the route?
What's the, that's, that's meet and confer. Right, that's meet and confer, but if I'm
not part of the police department, I'm not part of the association, then how do those
suggestions get routed to that? I think I would have to, I can bring them up and I'll
bring them up in discussion during the next meeting, confer. Yeah. Yeah. You can make
your, your concerns or desires known to the chiefs and they can bring them to the table.
Absolutely. Okay. So anything that we come up with this, the language of the quoted source
material we're bringing, we're going to meet, we're going to bring that up. We'll give that
to the chiefs and in three years you guys will fit it in the meet and confer. Right?
That's basically what it is, yeah. Okay. For the next set of commissioners, for the next
set of commissioners, right? I'll talk to the chiefs and see if there's maybe a way
of fine tuning that language with the association without having to go back to the negotiating
table. Well, and I think, I personally think we sort
of sent them, sent a message today to the chiefs and the associations that are here
that, about some of our concerns. So, I mean, I, again, I think it's out of our hands to
make any decision. It's in their hands. We have expressed our concerns with that, with
the language as it exists. So. This is orange juice, by the way, just in
case y'all are wondering. Yes, but it's a vodka in it. If there's nothing
else for the good of the order, I would entertain a motion that we adjourn at 1 10 p.m.
I'll second. I assume there's no, no discussion, so I'll
ever say aye. Oh, I'm so sorry. I did have one question.
Take that back. I'm sorry, I totally forgot. So, I'm so sorry.
So this is just, this is maybe related or not related. Just because Commissioner Baines
and I are both on this commission, if we both serve on the ad hoc use of force, ad hoc use
of force on the ad hoc committee, is that, does that, is there a conflict there?
I don't think so. I mean, I get, well, theoretically, I guess if, if you were here to force appeal,
maybe. But I just wanted to, I just want to throw
that out there because I know he's chairing that committee and I, I will probably serve
as the LULAC representative. So I just want to make sure there's not a.
I think what they have also, when you, when you get ready to express your interest for
that committee, I believe the city secretary's office, they have a form, which is called
like a conflict of interest form. And I think they have everybody fill that
form out. It's like an application process. So I would just include that information on
there and then they'll take a look at. That we're both commissioners.
Yes. Yes.
All right. Sorry. Now I'm ready. That will be my recommendation.
Okay. Now there's a motion on the floor. Now it's 1-11, Crystal. So all in favor of
adjourning, say aye. Aye.
All right. Thank you all. Thanks to everyone for your time.