[00:00:01]
WE HAVE A QUORUM TODAY, UH, FOR OUR MEETING, AND I HAVE,[Civil Service on June 3, 2025.]
UM, BRIDGET MITCHELL, CHRIS AL, PAM GERBER, AND MYSELF, UH, ARE OUR PRESIDENT.AND THIS IS, I'M GONNA CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
TODAY IS JUNE 3RD, 2025, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 9:40 AM UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AS WE GOT EVERYBODY SET UP AND ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES WE MAY HAVE HAD.
MIGHT STILL BE A SLIGHT REVERBERATION THERE, BUT, AND THEY'RE SHOWING THE VIDEO AS THEY'RE SHOWING, EXCUSE US A MOMENT, VIDEOS OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO BE DISAPPOINTED.
I KNOW THAT THEY CAMERAS ARE ON.
I CAN SEE THEM ON MY, YEAH, YEAH.
SO CAN WE YES, THAT'S THE, SO WE CAN HAVE HER ON.
WE WERE JUST TAKING A SHORT BREAK THERE WHERE WE MADE SURE WE HAD THE, THE, THE VIDEO IMAGES, EVERYONE ON THE BOARD, SO WE HAVE THAT TAKEN CARE OF.
UM, OUR FIRST, OUR SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY AFTER OUR CALL CALL TO ORDER, IS RECOGNIZE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS WHO ARE PRESENT.
UM, YOU'LL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
AND, UM, I, I THINK I'M GONNA ASK MANUEL IF THIS IS CORRECT, IT'S FOR THEM TO SIT AT THE CHAIR SO THEY CAN BE ON, ON THE, UH, ON THE SCREEN AS WELL.
SO, UH, I HAVE MY, OR TIMER RADIO OR, OR MANUEL, DO YOU HAVE YOUR, DO YOU HAVE A TIMER OR, I CAN DO IT ON MY CELL PHONE,
AND THE FIRST SPEAKER IS PLEASE WHOEVER WISHES TO SPEAK FIRST, PLEASE COME ON UP AND SIT IN THE CHAIR AND WE'LL MAKE SURE YEAH, THAT RIGHT THERE.
THAT WAY YOU'LL BE ON, ON, ON CAMERA.
HELLO? IT, IT, WE DO HAVE THE, WE DO HAVE, UH, TO HAVE YOU ON.
CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? YES, I BELIEVE SO.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UH, PLEASE TELL STATE YOUR NAME AND, UH, THEN WE HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK WITH THE BOARD.
AND WE'LL TIME THAT, AND EMMANUEL WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME'S UP.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY FOR HAVING ME.
MY NAME IS CRYSTAL CORTEZ, I'M A POLICE SERGEANT FOR THE DAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE PROMOTIONAL EXAM.
THAT WAS A ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE LIEUTENANT'S EXAM.
SO AS FAR AS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE, IT SAID ONCE THE WRITTEN TEST, WHICH IS IN JULY, SIX MONTHS FROM THE WRITTEN TEST, THAT EVERYBODY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.
HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT IS IN SEPTEMBER.
THE ASSESSMENT IS PART OF THE EXAMINATION, WHICH IS NOT HOW IT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
SO IN THE CER, CIVIL SERVICE RULES, ON PAGE TWO, LETTER NUMBER EIGHT, EXCUSE ME, EXAMINATION IS DEFINED AS MEANS A TEST OR ASSESSMENT DESIGNED TO EVALUATE THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF APPLICANT'S TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE PARTICULAR POSITION THEY SEEK TO FILL.
ALSO NUMBER, LETTER E, EXCUSE ME, 4.3 LETTER E, PAGE 13 OF THE RULE IS WRITTEN WHERE THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION IS CONSIDERED IN PART OF AN ASSESSMENT CENTER.
SO THE ASSESSMENT CENTER IS 65% OF THE GRADE, THE WRITTEN IS 35%, AND YOU HAVE TO GET A TOTAL TO GET THE TOTAL SCORE.
AND WITHOUT THEM BEING COMBINED, THE CANDIDATE CANNOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE A LIEUTENANT AND WON'T BE PROMOTED.
SO I'M COMING HERE TODAY AND I HAVE ACTUALLY PACKETS TO ISSUE YOU GUYS, AND I CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE REST OF THE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT HERE FOR ISSUED ONE AS WELL THEN GET EMAILED A COPY.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT IF THIS CHANGE IS IMPLEMENTED, CIVIL SERVICE SHOULD ALLOW POTENTIAL CANDIDATES WHO CAN NOW MEET THIS CRITERIA TO BE RECONSIDERED AS ELIGIBLE TEST TAKING CANDIDATES
[00:05:01]
10 BUSINESS DAYS TO TAKE THE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAM.SO IT IS FAIR OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF US TO, TO SIGN UP AND TAKE THE EXAM.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR NO, I WOULD, UH, IF, IF YOU WOULD GIVE EITHER LIKE A MANUAL COPY OF WHAT YOU YES, SIR, YOU HAVE.
THAT WAY IT CAN BE FORWARD TO EVERYONE.
AND I'M GOING TO BE SUBMITTING A GRIEVANCE PACKET.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? EXCUSE ME? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK TODAY? UH, YES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY, PLEASE? ONE MOMENT.
MR. MR. YOUNG, UM, I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIR.
MR. YOUNG, WE, WE ARE NOT, I DON'T BELIEVE, ARE YOU HERE AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER OR ARE YOU HERE FOR YOUR RE ELIGIBILITY APPEAL HEARING? OH, I'M HERE FOR MY RE UH, EXCUSE ME.
WHAT, MR. CHAIR? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.
MR. YOUNG, WE WE'RE NOT YET TO THE REHIRE ELIGIBILITY APPEAL HEARING.
MR. CHAIR, 1, 1, 1 THING HAS TO GO ON MUTE.
UM, WE HAVE TWO LINES OPEN IN THE SAME ROOM.
I THINK THAT MAY BE I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY.
YOU, YOU ARE REVERBERATING AND WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
THAT, THAT, UH, PLAY WITH THAT FOR A SECOND.
WHILE WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T START MEETING IN PERSON AT CITY HALL? HELLO? CAN ANYONE HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? HEY, PAM, WE CAN HEAR YOU, BUT, UH, JARED STEPPED AWAY.
JARED, YOU WANNA GO BACK TO YOUR OFFICE AND TRY? OKAY.
HE CAME IN HERE FOR A MOMENT TO, AND HE'S GONNA GO BACK TO HIS OFFICE AND TRY.
WELL, MR. CHAIR, MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T START MEETING AT CITY HALL? WELL, THAT'D BE A DECISION FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE AND WE'LL NEED TO PUT THAT ON, ON AN AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.
CAN I SUGGEST THAT? CAN I SUGGEST THAT GO ON THE, UH, AGENDA SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE? SURE.
MR. MS. GERBER, I, I'M, I'M SORRY.
I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? BECAUSE I, I THINK I HAVE A RESPONSE FOR YOU.
UM, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE DON'T START MEETING AT CITY HALL? UM, NO.
WE, WE'VE COME TO, WE'VE COME TO THE BOARD A COUPLE TIMES TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE GROUP.
UM, AND SO WE, WE DEFINITELY CAN LOOK AT THAT FOR AUGUST.
ALSO, WE ARE AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO UPGRADE OUR TECHNOLOGY IN OUR BOARDROOM THAT WOULD FACILITATE FOR BOTH VIRTUAL, MORE EASILY FACILITATE FOR BOTH VIRTUAL AND, AND PHYSICAL PRESENCE.
SO, NO SLIGHT AGAINST ANYBODY, BUT WE KNOW HOW LONG IT CAN TAKE TO GET IT FIXED.
AND SO, I DON'T KNOW, WE, IT'S NOW 9 47 OR 9 49 AND WE'RE DEALING WITH TECHNOLOGY AND I'M STILL DEALING WITH TECHNOLOGY.
I HAD A HARD TIME GETTING INTO THE FALL AGAIN, BUT MY POINT IS I THINK THAT THERE'S SOMETHING, WE'LL HAVE TO PUT THAT ON AN AGENDA, BUT, OKAY.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO DELIBERATION ON MAD THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
AND, HELLO, MY NAME'S FRED MEERS.
I'M EMPLOYEE NUMBER 1 0 3, 2 0 3.
I'M THE CITY OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LIEUTENANT.
WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO ATTENTION, UM, I'M SORRY, HEAR, DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING.
SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW THE MUTE WAS OFF.
HELLO, I'M GONNA REINTRODUCE MYSELF.
I AM A LIEUTENANT WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MY EMPLOYEE NUMBER IS 1 0 3 2 0 3, AND I JUST WANT TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD A MISINTERPRETATION OF A KEY ITEM THAT IS GOING TO PRE POTENTIALLY PREVENT AT LEAST MAYBE 40 EMPLOYEES FROM BEING ABLE TO TAKE THE CIVIL SERVICE WRITTEN EXAM, UM, FOR THE LIEUTENANTS TEST COMING UP ON, UH, JULY THE EIGHTH.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BASED UPON THE, YOUR RULES, IF I, WE LOOKING, UM, PERSONNEL RULES 34 DASH 38, THERE IS A STEP IN THERE WHERE YOU CAN MEET DIRECTLY WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD WHEN THERE'S A CLAIM RELATED TO AN INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF A CIVIL SERVICE RULE THAT'S UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER, AGAIN, SECTION 34
[00:10:01]
DASH 38, UH, UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.AND ALSO I WANT TO READ, MENTION WHAT THE DEFINITION OF THE EXAMINATION IS BASED UPON THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
THAT IS A TEST OR AN ASSESSMENT DESIGNED TO EVALUATE THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF APPLICANTS TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A PARTICULAR POSITION THAT THEY SEEK TO FILL.
AND IT JUST MENTIONED, UM, EVALUATE MERIT AND FITNESS AND BASED UPON THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE DEFINITION, MERIT FITNESS MEANS EDUCATION, TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, PERFORMANCE, KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ABILITY, LICENSES OR CERTIFICATIONS DEMONSTRATED BY EXAMINATION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EVIDENCES OF COMPETITION.
AND BY RECORDS OF MERIT EFFICIENCY AND CHARACTER CONDUCTING SENIORITY.
THOSE ITEMS THERE ARE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT CENTER, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR, FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHICH IS SCHEDULED AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER THE 15TH THROUGH THE 19TH.
AND BASED UPON HOW EMPLOYEES WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM TAKING THE WRITTEN EXAM, THIS ISN'T A FAIR PRACTICE.
IT'S ESPECIALLY LIKE IF IT'S WRITTEN TO SHOWING EXACTLY WHAT AN EXAMINATION IS AND, UH, WHAT THE FAIR, WHAT THE, UH, MERIT AND FITNESS IS FOR THE EXAM.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR, AND PETITION FOR, AND ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD TO MAKE A RULING TO ALLOW CANDIDATES THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THIS EXAM.
BECAUSE IT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT IS NOT WRITTEN CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY TO SHOW THAT THE WRITTEN EXAM ONLY IS INCLUDED WHEN IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED BASED UPON ALL THE ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR THE POLICE LIEUTENANT EXAM.
AND OF COURSE, WE'LL PROVIDE THIS DOCUMENTATION FOR YOU, BUT WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE 2025 LIEUTENANT EXAM SO THAT THESE CANDIDATES, THESE CITY EMPLOYEES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE IT.
IS IS, AND AGAIN, WE CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTIONS WITH HIM THAT'S NOT POSTED ON AN AGENDA.
SO THAT WAS, UM, TO, I GUESS REBUTTAL, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR RESPONSE, I GUESS TO REBUTTAL YOUR RESPONSE.
UM, WE WERE ASKED TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA TO BE ABLE TO DEBATE OUR ARGUMENT OR THEIR ARGUMENT, AND IT WAS SUBSCRIBED TO COME TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, PRESENT A GRIEVANCE.
SO IF THERE IS, AND WE HAVE ALSO EMAILS TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE, UH, IF THERE IS A WAY TO GET ADDED ONTO THE AGENDA, IF THERE COULD BE A, UH, AMENDMENT MADE TO GET ADDED TO THE AGENDA TO BE, WE, I'M, I'M ASKING THIS DUE TO OUR TIME CONSTRAINTS.
WELL, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE HAVE TO POST EVERYTHING 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE.
AND SO IT, IT IS NOT POSTED FOR WHATEVER REASON.
AGAIN, WITH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT FOR THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD THIS, SO, UM, WHEN WE CAN LOOK INTO IT, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION AND WE TECHNICALLY BE FOLLOWING UP WITH MEETINGS AFTER TAKE ACTION ON SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT POSTED OUR AGENDA.
WE WOULD ALSO, I NEED TO GET LEGAL ADVICE FROM OUR ATTORNEY AND WHEN THAT TIME COMES FOR THAT, FOR THAT, UH, FOR US TO HEAR THAT.
CAN I JUST ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD TAKES CONSIDERATION FOR AT LEAST 44 EMPLOYEES, CITY EMPLOYEES, THAT COULD MEET THE, UM, EXAMINATION DEADLINE BASED ON THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
AND, UM, DO SUBMIT THE, UH, GRIEVANCE DIRECTLY TO YOU OR TO, TO THE BOARD SECRETARY.
YOU AN ESTIMATE ON THE DEFENDANT CORRECTION? YES.
I, AGAIN, I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT IT IS, BUT WE'LL, THEY'LL, THEY'LL HELP YOU WITH THAT, CERTAINLY.
THANK YOU, MR. MR. MR. MEEZ, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TODAY? GOOD MORNING.
I TURN DOWN MY VOLUME SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE
SO GOOD MORNING AND HAVE THREE MINUTE.
I'M A SERGEANT WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, 1 1 6 1 3 2.
I'M ALSO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE DALLAS POLICE ASSOCIATION.
ONE OF MY ROLES BEING THAT OF, UH, PREPARATION FOR PROMOTIONAL EXAMS. UH, SO I'M DEFINITELY HERE IN SUPPORT OF EVERYBODY THAT'S, THAT'S ALREADY ALREADY SPOKE BECAUSE MANY OF THESE, OF OUR, OUR MEMBERS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, DILIGENTLY STUDYING AND PREPARING, UH, ONE IN PARTICULAR I WANT TO BRING UP FOR THE BOARD.
[00:15:01]
UH, JUST LIKE LIEUTENANT, UH, MES BROUGHT UP, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE'RE ASKING FOR ANY AGENDA ITEMS. WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING THAT THE EXISTING RULES BE FOLLOWED, YOU KNOW, FOR THESE, THESE CANDIDATES.UH, THE ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT COULD NOT BE PRESENT, UH, TODAY, UH, SERGEANT MARK JOHNSON, UH, SERGEANT JOHNSON PROMOTED TO THE RANK OF SERGEANT JUNE 25TH, 2008.
UM, AND HE SERVED IN THAT ROLE UNTIL HE DEMOTED BACK TO SENIOR CORPORAL IN JANUARY 16TH, 2013.
UM, THAT BEING FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AT THE RANK OF SERGEANT, UM, JULY 3RD, 2024, HE WAS PROMOTED BACK TO SERGEANT.
UH, SO AS OF, UH, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, THAT'S, UM, UM, RIGHT AT 0.9 YEARS, GIVING HIM FIVE AND A HALF YEARS OF SERVED AS THE RANK OF SERGEANT.
UH, YET HE WAS DENIED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE LIEUTENANT'S EXAM.
UH, WHICH HAS, UH, THE PREREQUISITE THAT YOU'D BE AT THE RANK OF SERGEANT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
UH, SERGEANT JOHNSON HAS BEEN AT THE RANK OF SERGEANT, UH, FOR FIVE AND A HALF YEARS.
UH, SO ONCE AGAIN, JUST COMING BEFORE THE BOARD ASKING THAT THE EXISTING, UH, RULES BE FOLLOWED AND ALLOWING THESE INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE THE LIEUTENANT'S TEST.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE? OKAY, ONE MORE PLEASE, PLEASE COME ON DOWN.
I'M A POLICE SERGEANT OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE ALSO TO, UH, IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THE CLAIM THAT THE, UH, CIVIL RULES ARE NOT, UM, BEING FOLLOWED IN ADHERENCE TO THIS, UH, PENDING LIEUTENANT'S, UH, PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ADD THAT, UH, WHEN SERGEANT PEACE, UH, SPOKE OF, UH, SERGEANT MARK JOHNSON, UH, DEMOTING, HE WAS VOLUNTARY, WAS NOT PUNITIVE.
UM, AND IN THAT SAME, UH, EXCUSE THE ARGUMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, IN CONSIDERATION OF THESE CANDIDATES, UH, CERTAIN LIFE CHANGES CAN HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT PROMOTIONAL EXAM, THAT WOULD PROBABLY PREVENT THEM FROM EVEN CONSIDERING, UH, PROMOTION TO LIEUTENANT.
AND IN MY OWN PERSONAL BELIEF, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE FUTURE OF THE DAS POLICE DEPARTMENT IN INNER CITY OF DALLAS IS IN A, HE AT THIS POINT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
'CAUSE, UM, OUR NEXT POLICE CHIEF COULD BE ON THAT NEXT LIST.
AND IF THESE RULES ARE NOT FOLLOWED, THEN YOU KNOW THAT THAT CHEST MAY GO TO ANOTHER EXTERNAL CANDIDATE, WHICH WE ALL WANT.
UH, SOMEONE I WOULD FOR, UH, A CHIEF FROM DALLAS, OR FROM AT LEAST THE AREA TO, TO BE OUR NEXT LEADER.
UM, EVEN IF IT WAS DOWN THE ROAD, I WOULDN'T WANT THAT OPPORTUNITY MISSED FOR ANYBODY THAT'S ON THAT LIST.
SO, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, SERGEANT.
THANK, AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE TODAY, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR SERVICE.
MR. CHAIR, BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT I WAS ABLE TO VISIT WITH MR. MES, UM, AND SHARE WITH HIM, UM, TO SHARE WITH THE OTHERS THAT IF THEY HAVE, UM, A GRIEVANCE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT, UM, IF THEY, THEY COULD TURN THAT IN AT THE FRONT AND I'LL TAKE THAT UNDER DUE COURSE AND, UM, AND, AND WORK WITH IT AS, AS OUR POLICY PROCEDURE REQUIRED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT OKAY.
I'VE GIVEN THEM INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO GET THAT PROPERLY SUBMITTED TODAY.
OKAY, OUR NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TODAY IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES TO APPROVE.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 28TH, 2025 SPECIAL CALL OF CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING.
YOU ALL HAVE A COPY OF THE MINUTES THAT WERE ATTACHED TO THE PACKET OR INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE REVISIONS OR TO THEM? HEARING? DONE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE, UH, SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON MARCH 28TH? MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND OR SAY AYE.
MOTION PASSES NA AND FORWARD COURT.
UH, OUR NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TODAY ARE,
[00:20:01]
ARE, ARE OUR HEARING ITEMS. THE FIRST WE'RE GONNA DO IS HEAR THE REHIRE ELIGIBILITY APPEAL OF MR. SITTER YOUNG, A FORMER EMPLOYEE IN THE DALLAS FIRE DEPARTMENT.THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
UM, LET ME JUST BRIEFLY, UH, EXPLAIN HOW THIS WORKS.
UH, IT IS, UH, VERY INFORMAL AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO IS TO EXPLAIN TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THEN WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING SINCE YOU LEFT THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND, UM, AND THEN THE BOARD MAY HAVE QUESTION, QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
WELL, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE.
AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MS. YA.
UH, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN.
UM, MY ROLE TO BE OF DALLAS, UH, STARTED BACK IN 2007.
I WORKED FOR THE STREET DEPARTMENT, UH, DUE TO PERSONAL ISSUE, I HAD TO RESIGN AT THE POSITION IN THE STREETS DEPARTMENT.
THEN I CAME BACK FOR THE, I WORKED IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT, UH, DURING MY PROBATION PERIOD.
AND I DIDN'T, BASICALLY, I DIDN'T PASS MY PROBATION 'CAUSE I DIDN'T PASS THE, WHAT WAS THAT? THE TECQ TEST FOR THE BOARD DEPARTMENT.
AND I WAS LET GO AND, UH, AND I WAS TOLD THAT I WAS ELIGIBLE FOR REHAB.
BUT THEN WHEN I, YOU KNOW, STARTED RESEARCHING IT, THEY SAID I WAS, UH, LET GO FOR, I GUESS IMAL STANDINGS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND I WAS EXPLAINING TO MS. UH, ANNA THAT I DIDN'T GET TERMINATED FOR WRONGDOING.
YOU KNOW, I, I WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE I DIDN'T PASS MY PROBATION.
AND SO I GUESS THE CITY PUT A BED ON ME BEING REHIRED FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS.
AND, UH, SO WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING SINCE THEN, UH, I'VE BEEN DOING DIESEL MECHANIC WORK, UH, FOR LIKE THE LOCAL CONCRETE COMPANIES.
UH, I WORK FOR MARTIN MARIETTA, UH, LAMORE, WHICH IS HOLCOMB RIGHT NOW, NELSON BROTHERS, UH, YOU KNOW, TA YOU KNOW, I JUST BEEN DOING, YOU KNOW, DIESEL MECHANIC WORK.
AND RIGHT NOW I'M WORKING OVER AT LOWER LAND, UH, MEMORIAL, UH, PARK RIGHT NOW IS, IS GROUND MAINTENANCE.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST BEEN TRYING TO KEEP MYSELF BUSY AND I'VE BEEN, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT DOING TAX SEASON THIS, THAT'S WHAT I BE DOING.
SO I BE HAVING, DOING TAX SEASON, I WORK AS A OFFICE ASSISTANCE FOR UNLIMITED TAXES.
AND I, AND THAT'S BEEN STATED FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.
THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY PRIMARY JOB, UM, DURING TAX SEASON.
YOU KNOW, I JUST TRY TO STAY BUSY AND JUST TRY TO KEEP SOMETHING GOING.
AND IF I COULD, YOU KNOW, UH, IF YOU GUYS WOULD RECONSIDER AND HIRE ME BACK WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND LET ME PROVE TO YOU GUYS THAT I AM ABLE AND CAPABLE IN SECEDING WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, I UNDERSTAND MR. YOUNG, THAT YOU WORKED WITH THE CITY, THEN YOU RESIGNED AND YOU CAME BACK TO THE CITY.
AND, AND AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU FAILED PROBATION BECAUSE OF A, OF A, OF A LICENSE REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
UH, AND FROM 2000 THAT, THAT YOU, YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM THE CITY IN NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY ALMOST 14 YEARS AGO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE TIME SINCE.
WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT? YES, SIR.
I JUST HAD TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION.
WHAT IS UNLIMITED TAXES AND MORE, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF JOB DUTIES DID YOU HAVE OR DO YOU HAVE WITH THEM? UH, AS A OFFICE ASSISTANT FOR TANK PREPARATION.
IT'S A, IT'S THE TAX COMPANIES.
I JUST HADN'T HEARD OF THEM BEFORE.
SAYS, THANK YOU, UM, BOARD, I'M GONNA TURN THIS OVER TO YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. YOUNG.
I MEAN, MAYBE IT'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, BUT I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY SUCH A LONG STRETCH OF TIME BEFORE THE, UM, REAPPLICATION.
BECAUSE EVERY TIME I APPLIED FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEY SAID I WAS, I WASN'T ELIGIBLE, UH, FOR THAT POSITION, OR I WASN'T ELIGIBLE FOR RE HIRE, UH, AT THE TIME DUE TO
[00:25:01]
THE, TO THE TERMINATION IN 2011.AND WHEN THEY, WHEN I ASKED WHY AT FIRST THEY COULDN'T EXPLAIN TO ME, THEN MS. ANNA EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IT WAS DUE TO A, LIKE A, A MORAL SITUATION.
I'M LIKE, I DIDN'T ANYTHING WRONG.
I JUST DIDN'T PASS THE, THE TEST AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
THEN SHE SAID I HAD TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF APOLOGY, WHICH I DONE.
I HAD TO SEND HER A VERIFICATION LETTER, WHICH I DONE.
UH, SO EVERYTHING THAT SHE ASKED ME TO DO, I DONE IT.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME, AND I FINALLY GOT A HEARING, AVOID HEARING WITH YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, REALLY, WHAT DID I DO WRONG BESIDES NOT PASS THE, THE, THE WATER TEST? WERE YOU EVER GIVEN ANY, UH, WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THE DENIAL? NO, MA'AM.
YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND MR. ALEX, WHICH WAS THE SUPERVISOR THAT CAME IN, UH, BACK IN 2011, HE, THE ONE, HE, HE, THE ONE EXPLAINED TO ME LIKE, NO, AFTER A CERTAIN POINT, I THINK IT'S TWO YEARS, THEN I'LL BE ELIGIBLE FOR REHA.
AND THEN AFTER THE TWO YEARS, IT'S LIKE, I JUST KEPT GETTING DENIED, DENIED EVERY APPLICATION I PUT BACK IN.
I JUST KEPT GETTING DENIED AND DENIED.
AND SOMETIMES THAT JUST, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE FIGHT OUT OF IT.
AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I WON'T BE THERE AT THE CITY IN DALLAS.
SO I DID EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ASKED ME TO DO TO PROVE MYSELF, JARED, IS THERE, DOES THERE EXIST SOMETHING THAT CAN BE A WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION TO VERIFY THAT MR. YOUNG DID ACTUALLY REAPPLY TWICE AND WAS DE DENIED BASED ON X, Y, OR Z? I MEAN, WE CAN GO BACK AND, AND, AND, AND DO A HISTORICAL PULL OF WHAT POSITIONS HE, HE WOULD'VE APPLIED FOR, BUT AN ORDINARY CASE WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES AND THEY'RE IN, THEY'RE DENIED IN THIS FASHION.
THAT'S HOW THEY CONTACT US TO, TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION TO COME BEFORE YOU.
SO I, YOU KNOW, I, I FIND IT A BIT CURIOUS THAT IT TOOK THIS LONG, UM, FOR MR. YOUNG TO GET BEFORE, UM, THIS BODY PARTICULARLY UNDERSTANDING THAT HIS PREVIOUS SUPERVISOR, MR. LAND, ADVISED HIM, YOU KNOW, OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE POST TWO YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT.
SO IT, IT'S A LITTLE CURIOUS FOR ME, BOARD MEMBER GERBER, BUT I MEAN, WE CAN GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
BUT, UM, THAT'S THE, THAT'S HOW WE GET TO REHIRE ELIGIBILITY APPEAL HEARINGS IS AN INDIVIDUAL GOES IN AND APPLIES, AND THEN THEY'RE ADVISED ON HOW THEY CAN, CAN APPROACH THIS BOARD AND WITH WHAT TIMEFRAMES AND WITH WHAT REQUIRED DOCUMENTS.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING TOO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION IS THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE REASON FOR, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NOT PROMOTION OR IF IT'S TERMINATION.
UH, THERE'S A DISCONNECT IN THAT THERE'S TWO WORDS BEING USED.
ONE IS CERTIFICATION, AND THE OTHER ONE IS MORAL.
I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T RECALL THE SECOND WORD THAT GOES WITH MORAL, BUT WOULDN'T THIS CASE BE JUDGED DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON WHICH ONE OF THOSE TERMS WE REFER TO? OR IS IT 6 0 1 HALF A DOZEN? THE OTHER I, I WANT TO ANSWER, IT DEPENDS.
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS TO, TO, UH, UH, AUTHORITATIVELY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE BACKGROUND, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS MR. YOUNG'S TESTIMONY AS TO HIS REASONS.
WE HAVE A LETTER IN OUR PACKET THAT IT WAS FOR, UH, FAILURE OR PROBATION, RIGHT? DEALING WITH A LICENSE.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT IT'S A DISCONNECT.
UM, I, I JUST, AGAIN, I FIND IT CURIOUS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S TAKEN US THIS AMOUNT OF TIME TO, TO GET TO THIS HEARING STAGE, AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IS MISSING ANYTHING ALONG THE WAY, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S MY PER, IT'S, MY GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, UH, YOU KNOW, ADVISE AND APPRISE, UH, AFFECTED EMPLOYEES OF WHAT THEIR OPPORTUNITIES ARE, UM, TO COME BEFORE YOU ALL AND MAKING SURE THAT HAPPENS IN A SEAMLESS WAY.
SO, UM, THIS MAY BE A GOOD ONE FOR US TO DO SOME REVISIONIST, UM, UM, UM, REVIEW ON IT.
AND, AND SO I'M MORE THAN HAPPY, HAPPY TO DO THAT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ENOUGH FACTS TO CONCLUDE EXACTLY HOW WE GOT HERE.
ONE, ONE MORE QUESTION ON THAT.
I JUST HAVE ONE THAT IS ADDRESSING THAT VERY ISSUE.
JARED, DOES IT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE OUTCOME IF IT'S MORAL VERSUS, UH, UH, CERTIFICATION? OR IS IT THE SAME THING? IS IT THE SAME THING? OR IS IT DIFFERENT OUTCOMES? AND IF IT'S, IF IT'S DIFFERENT, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT REQUIRES A MOTION, BUT I THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GO BACK IN, IN THE HISTORIC DOCUMENTS AND, AND FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE APPLIES HERE.
[00:30:01]
I, I THINK WHAT APPLIES HERE IN THIS TERMINATION IS ON THE FACE OF THE TERMINATION LETTER THAT'S IN THE PACKET, THAT THE OKAY FOR TERMINATION IS FAILURE OR PROBATION.AND, AND IF I COULD ADD, THERE WERE TWO, TWO PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT.
UH, THE FIRST WAS, UH, UH, WHERE MR. YOUNG RESIGNED IN FROM THE STREET DEPARTMENT.
THAT EFFECTIVE DATE WAS JULY 30TH, 2008.
AND THAT REFERENCED JOB ABANDONMENT.
NOW, AGAIN, WE DON'T GO BACK AND, AND, AND, AND ALL THOSE ARE DEEMED CORRECT.
WE DON'T GO BACK AND RE-LITIGATE SOMETHING FROM 12, 13 YEARS AGO.
THE SECOND TIME OF EMPLOYMENT WA IS, IS IS THE FAILURE OF PROBATION BECAUSE OF THE TCEQ TEST, THE, THE OP THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE THAT WASN'T, WASN'T, UH, OBTAINED.
AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I I, I DON'T SEE MUCH NEED TO GO BACK AND TRY TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2008, UH, BECAUSE I, I, THERE, WE, WE ACCEPT THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT ALL THAT AS TRUE.
SO, UH, I, I GO WITH THAT FOR THE TIME BEING.
SO I THINK THE QUESTION FOR US IS, DOES MR. YOUNG MERIT THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO, UH, BE ALLOWED TO, TO APPLY AGAIN FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR EMPLOYMENT? AND, AND SO LET ME ASK, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ANY BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE FOR, FOR MR. YOUNG? OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO, TO OFFER? CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH ALLOWING MR. YOUNG TO REAPPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND.
I, PAM, WHO, CHRIS, LAST TIME.
AND AGAIN, LET ME SAY, I'M JUST TAKING THIS A LITTLE BIT OUTTA ORDER.
WE, UNDER OUR AGENDA, WE HAVE THE ACTION LATER ON IN THE, UH, UH, IN THE, IN THE, UH, UH, AGENDA.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON EACH, EACH OF OUR HEARINGS TODAY, SO WE DON'T MAKE MR. YOUNG SIT AROUND AND GO THROUGH THE OTHER HEARING BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION ON, ON HIS.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ALLOW MR. YOUNG TO REAPPLY THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UH, I THEN ASK, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND OR SAY, AYE.
SO THAT MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ZERO.
SO MR. YOUNG, IF YOU'LL BE IN CONTACT WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE FOLKS, THEY WILL ASSIST YOU IN ANY WAY THAT CAN WITH THIS.
AND SO GOOD LUCK ON YOUR APPEAL AND WE'LL WITHDRAW THE BEST.
UM, OUR NEXT ITEM IS TO, UH, AND AGAIN, WE TOOK ACTION ON ITEM SEVEN ON THE FIRST HEARING AND THE SECOND HEARING.
WE'LL TAKE ACTION AFTER THAT HEARING AS WELL.
AND THE NEXT HEARING IS TO CONDUCT THE GRIEVANCE, GRIEVANCE APPEAL HEARING, AND MR. WILLIAM JORDAN CARTER, IN WHICH HE CLAIMS THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATED CODE OF RULES, UH, AND REGULATIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RULE 4.4 SWORN SERVICE CERTIFICATIONS AND PROMOTIONS IN THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, SUBSECTION E PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WHAT I'M GONNA DO, UH, THANK YOU MR. CARTER.
UH, I'M GONNA ASK OUR, THE, THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY, UH, IF HE, IF DANIEL MOORE, IF HE'D BE SO KIND AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BOARD, KIND OF REFRESH OUR MEMORY ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WE WILL, WE, WE WILL, WE WILL GO THROUGH TODAY.
AND CONSIDERING THIS, UH, GRIEVANCE APPEAL, I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO MR. MOORE.
UM, MR. CARTER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.
FIRST THE BOARD WILL BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THE END OF HIS PRESENTATION.
UH, MS. BESET FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, AND THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF HER.
UH, MR. CARTER CAN DECIDE, THE DELIBERATIONS WILL BE IN AN OPEN MEETING OR IN A CLOSED MEETING.
AND BASED ON THAT, WE CAN, UM, DECIDE WHAT TO DO THERE.
THEN THE BURDEN IS ON MR. CARTER AND SIMPLY THE BOARD BY MAJORITY VOTE AND, UH, GIVE ANY EQUITABLE RELIEF THAT IT
[00:35:01]
DEEMS IT IS NECESSARY.AND I, I DON'T SEE MS. ETT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
IS SHE HERE? I'M JUST MISSING HER.
SHE, SHE'S JUST NOT ON MY SCREEN.
SO LET ME, LET ME, MR. CHAIR, WHILE YOU REARRANGE YOUR SCREENS, UM, IF WE CAN CLOSE, CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC SPEAKER LINE.
I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE, I THINK THAT LINE IS STILL OPEN.
UM, I COULD HEAR A LITTLE FEEDBACK.
SO I THINK OTHER THAN THAT, BUT, UH, MR. I'M, I'M SORRY, JARED.
WHAT, WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT WE, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? THE PUBLIC SPEAKER, UH, MICROPHONE, I BELIEVE IS OPEN, AND I JUST WANTED TO REMIND IN THE ROOM IF WE CAN GET THAT CLOSED BEFORE WE GET GOING HERE, JUST FOR, FOR AUDIO PURPOSES.
MANUEL SAID MANUEL SET IS OFF.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU HEARING ANY REVERBERATION? I'M, I'M GOOD NOW.
UH, AS I UNDERSTAND TOO, THIS HEARING, THIS CAN BE ENCLOSED SESSION IF, IF UPON THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT.
DOES THE APPELLANT WISH TO DO SO? NO.
WE WILL HAVE THE SAME QUESTION WHEN IT COMES TIME TO DELIBERATION.
WELL, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO, UH, MR. MCDADE FOR YOU TO MAKE ANY PRESENTATION YOU'D LIKE AND THEN PRESENT ANY WITNESSES YOU MAY WISH.
UM, I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF PRELIMINARY MATTERS IF, IF YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO HEARING THEM.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE CITY IN THIS MATTER.
UM, AS AN INITIAL MATTER, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY MOVE TO DISMISS THIS CASE.
UH, MR. CARTER FAILED TO FILE AND SERVE AN EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES, AND THEREFORE UNDER SECTION 34, 39 B FOUR AND 39 34 39, C5 SHOULD BE BARRED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY, AND THEREFORE CANNOT SATISFY HIS BURDEN OF PROOF.
BEFORE I ASK FOR MR. MCDADE TO RESPOND TO THAT, CAN YOU, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THOSE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS SAY OF, OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED? YES, OF COURSE.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS SECTION 34, 39, B AS IN BOY FOUR.
AND THAT CAN BE FOUND IN THE CITY'S EXHIBIT NOTEBOOK, UM, ON COD 0 6 4 ADDITIONAL, EXCUSE ME, ADDITIONAL, GIMME A SECOND.
AND THEN THE SECOND RULE I REFERENCED MR. CHAIR, IS SECTION 34, 39 C FIVE.
LET ME JUST, JUST FOR PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION, ON PAGE 64, IT WAS OBJE, UH, WHERE WERE YOU READING FROM? YES, SIR.
UM, SUBSECTION B AS IN BOY, FOUR.
AND THAT'S THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE EXCHANGE OF WITNESS LIST AND LIST AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE.
AND, AND THE NEXT, THE NEXT REFERENCE IN THE, IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
ASSUMING PERSONNEL RULES, I'M SORRY,
AND THAT PERMITS THE BOARD TO EXCLUDE AMONG OTHER THINGS.
UM, ANY EXHIBIT NOT PREVIOUSLY EXCHANGED AND THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED.
UM, LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
I, THERE WERE NO, THERE ARE NO, THERE ARE NO EXHIBITS THAT WERE EXCHANGED OR PROVIDED BY THE, THE, THE APPELLANT.
THE GRIEVANT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, UM, NO WITNESSES THAT WERE, WERE PROVIDED NO, NO WITNESSES WAS NOT PROVIDED AS WELL, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WOULD YOU HAVE OBJECTION TO, I MEAN, THE, THEY DON'T, THEY, THEY DIDN'T PRESENT, UH, PRO PROVIDE EXHIBITS.
SO I MEAN, CLEARLY WE COULD LET THE, THE APPELLANT TESTIFY.
UM, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THEY TRIED TO INTRODUCE WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE APPELLANT.
I WOULD SEE, I WOULD CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT OBJECTION.
I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT ON IT.
AND THEY HAVE NO EXHIBITS, SO I MEAN, IT, IT IS WHAT IT IS.
THERE ARE NO, NO, NO EXHIBITS FOR US TO CONSIDER,
[00:40:01]
UH, OR TO EXCLUDE UNLESS THEY ATTEMPT TO, TO OFFER AN EXHIBIT.UM, SO ANYWAY, I, I DON'T, I'M JUST KIND OF PONDERING THAT AND SAY, OKAY, THEY, IF IF WE, IF WE SAY WE, THEY CAN'T OFFER ANY EXHIBITS 'CAUSE NONE WERE PROVIDED TIMELY, AND THEY CAN CALL NO WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE APPELLANT, WHICH WOULD YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO PROCEEDING? UH, THERE WOULD BE NO OBJECTION FROM THE CITY, MR. CHAIR.
MR. MCDADE, UH, I WANT TO GIVE, OBVIOUSLY GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS AS WELL.
YEAH, EVERYTHING WAS SUBMITTED AS REQUESTED.
UM, AND THE ONLY ADDITIONAL WITNESS I HAD, I HAD EVEN LISTED WAS, UH, CHIEF DOMINIQUE ARTIS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, AND AS FAR AS, UH, EXHIBITS, THE EXHIBITS ARE THE EXACT SAME THAT THE CITY PROVIDED.
UM, AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED ALONG THE WAY, UH, THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE GRIEVANCE, WE'VE NOW HAD, UH, 1, 2, 3, 3 HEARINGS OR TWO HEARINGS ON THIS SO FAR.
AND EVERYTHING'S, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
IT'S ALL THE SAME INFORMATION, IT'S ALL THE SAME DATA.
UM, THE LIST OF WITNESSES I RECEIVED FROM THE CITY, UH, THOSE WOULD ALL BE PEOPLE THAT I WOULD, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD SOME REBUTTAL QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT.
SO, UH, AND IF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE CITY DOESN'T WANT, UH, CHIEF DOMINIC ARTISTS TO, TO, UH, BE ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, AS I, I DID SUBMIT THAT IN A TIMELY FASHION AS, AS REQUESTED.
UH, THIS, THIS IS ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF A RULE.
UM, WITNESSES AREN'T REALLY EVEN NEEDED IN THIS.
WELL, LET ME, LET ME ASK THIS.
UH, MR. MCDADE, UH, THE CITY DID PRESENT, UH, UH, A, A A A BINDER OF EXHIBITS.
I THINK YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THEM.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE INCLUSION OF THOSE RE EXHIBITS IN THE RECORD? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
SO WE'LL DEEM THOSE EXHIBITS AS ADMITTED.
I, I SENT, I SENT A PACKET OF INFORMATION, WHICH WAS THE SAME THING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN, UH, SENT, UM, TO MR. CASTELLANO THE OTHER DAY.
HE, HE WASN'T, HE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT.
IT, THE FILE I HAD SENT HIM, I SENT WASN'T COMING THROUGH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WELL, IF THEY'RE THE SAME RECORDS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE CITY'S EXHIBITS, UH, I, I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK WE, WE, WE, WE'VE JUST DEEMED THOSE ADMITTED, WE JUST ADMITTED THOSE RECORDS.
THERE'S MUCH MORE THAT'S NECESSARY ON THAT AS TO, AS TO WITNESSES.
I MEAN, AGAIN, UM, I'VE NOT SEEN IT.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MS. PSET IS THAT THE WITNESS LIST WAS NOT TOMMY PRESENTED, BUT MS. MCDADE, YOU THEN SAY YOU THINK THIS PRETTY MUCH IS A RULE INTERPRETATION MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
SO, MS. PSET, ON YOUR MOTION TO DISMISS IT, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE HIM, I'M NOT GOING TO DISMISS IT BECAUSE THAT YOU WE'RE USING THE SAME RECORDS YOU'VE SUBMITTED, AND I ASSUME THAT, THAT MR. CARTER, AT ONE POINT IN TIME MAY TESTIFY, WHICH I THINK WOULD CERTAINLY BE PERMISSIBLE IF, IF OTHER WITNESSES ARE CALLED.
I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO REGURG YOUR MOTION TO EXCLUDE THAT WITNESS AT THAT TIME.
AND, UM, SO IS THERE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING? ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT? NO.
DID ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? NO.
ANY OTHER PRELIMINARY ITEMS? UH, YES, SIR.
IF, IF WE COULD JUST, UH, THE CITY ONLY INTENDS TO CALL, UH, MR. DAVIS AS A WITNESS AND MR. CARTER, SO IF WE COULD PLEASE GET THOSE WITNESSES SWORN IN.
OKAY, JARED, WELL, DO WE HAVE OUR, WE DO RECORDER? UM, UM, OLIVER IS OUR COURT REPORTER THIS MORNING, SO, OKAY.
LET ME JUST ADD, RIGHT, OLIVER IS ON THE SCREEN IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, BUT NOT ON, I DON'T THINK YOU ALL SEE HIM ON YOUR SCREENS, DO YOU? YES, WE SEE HIM.
OLIVER, ARE YOU READY TO GO? I THINK HE'S, HE'S NOT HERE.
[00:45:22]
YES.I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE WAS, BUT, OKAY.
SO, UM, DO YOU WANT ME TO THROW THEM IN ONE BY ONE OR, I DON'T SEE THE WITNESSES ONE BY ONE IS FINE.
MR. CARTER, WILL YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN IN? EXCUSE ME? YES.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES.
AND THE SECOND WITNESS, UM, MR. DAVIS, MR. DAVIS, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT ISSUE THERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DOING THAT.
MR. MCDADE, I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND ANY TESTIMONY FROM MR. CARTER.
UM, SO WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS MR. CARTER'S GRIEVANCE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED, UH, JUNE 26TH, 2024.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION APPLICATION AND THE INTENT OF SECTION 4.4 OF THE CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
SO SEC, UH, SECTION 4.4 OF THE CODE STATES PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION ON ANY DEPARTMENT EXAMINATION, THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS MAKING PASSING GRADES, INCLUDING ASSESSMENT EXERCISE WHERE APP APPLICABLE SHALL BE PLACED ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST.
ANY PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS FROM THE
SO AFTER AN INFORMAL HEARING THAT WE RECENTLY HAD WITH MR. DAVIS, UH, HE RESPONDED ON MARCH 10TH, UH, 2025, THAT IN HIS OPINION, THIS RULE WAS NOT VIOLATED SINCE MR. CARTER'S NAME WAS PLACED ON AN AMENDED LIST THAT WAS PUBLISHED ON MAY 14TH, 2024.
WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT MR. CARTER WAS ADDED, WHILE OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT ADDRESSED, MOST IMPORTANTLY THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE INTENT OF THE LIST IS AND WHAT THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF ANY MEMBER WHO IS ON THE LIST.
SO WHAT IS THE INTENT OF CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.4? AS YOU KNOW, THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD IS ESTABLISHED BY THE DALLAS CITY CHARTER, CHAPTER 16.
UH, THE BOARD IS CHARGED WITH ADOPTING, AMENDING, AND ENFORCING A CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR APPOINTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT IN ALL POSITIONS IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE, WHICH SHALL HAVE THE FULL EFFECT OF LAW.
ANY CHANGES TO THE CODE MUST FIRST BE APPROVED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD AND THEN BY CITY COUNCIL.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE CODE WOULD DEVIATE FROM THE CODE IN ANY MANNER.
THE DALLAS CITY CHARTER IN SECTION SIX, EVEN ESTABLISHES THE PARAMETERS FOR PROMOTIONAL PROCESSES IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE.
IT STATES IN SECTION SIX A, THE BOARD SHALL PROVIDE FOR PROMOTION TO ALL POSITIONS IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE ON THE BASIS OF MERIT AND FITNESS, DEMONSTRATED BY EXAMINATION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EVIDENCES OF COMPETITION AND BY RECORDS OF MERIT EFFICIENCY, CHARACTER CONDUCT, AND SENIORITY.
TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE RULE WAS NOT PROPERLY INTERPRET, INTERPRETED, AND APPLIED TO THE SITUATION, WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE SIT OF THIS SITUATION.
MR. CARTER WAS WRONGFULLY TERMINATED ON NOVEMBER 16TH, 2021, AND AFTER A LENGTHY APPEAL PROCESS, HE WAS REINSTATED ON OCTOBER 18TH, 2023 DURING THAT TIMEFRAME THAT HE WAS NOT EMPLOYED.
A FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION WAS GIVEN ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2022, AND THE ASSESSMENT CENTER WAS ON DECEMBER 5TH AND SIXTH OF 2022.
THE ORIGINAL RANKINGS WERE CERTIFIED AND PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 22ND, 2022.
ONCE MR. CARTER WAS REINSTATED, HE PETITIONED CIVIL SERVICE TO ALLOW HIM TO TAKE THE EXAMINATION.
THIS REQUEST WAS SENT TO THE CITY OF DALLAS HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AND THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE THAT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEST.
DUE TO THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2024, MR. CARTER TAKES, TOOK THE WRITTEN PORTION OF THE EXAM AND THEN THE ASSESSMENT CENTER ON APRIL 30TH, 2024.
AFTER SCORING THE TEST, A NEWLY CERTIFIED PROMOTIONAL LIST WAS PUBLISHED BY CIVIL SERVICE AND THE DALLAS FIRE AND DALLAS FIRE RESCUE ON MAY 14TH, 2024.
WITH MR. CARTER AND TWO OTHER NAMES WHO HAD ALSO TAKEN THE MAKE MAKEUP EXAM.
MR. CARTER WAS PLACED AT NUMBER 21 ON THE PROMOTIONAL LIST AT THE TIME.
AT THAT TIME, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SINCE THE LIST HAD BEEN ACTIVE FOR ABOUT 17 MONTHS, DALLAS FIRE RESCUE HAD ALREADY
[00:50:01]
PROMOTED IN ORDER.47 MEMBERS ON THE LIST AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE LIST, ALL OF THE BUDGETED AND APPROVED FIRE LIEUTENANT POSITIONS WERE FILLED.
THUS, THE HISTORICAL WAY OF DOING THINGS WOULD MEAN THAT IF A POSITION BECAME VACANT DUE TO THE RETIREMENT OR ANOTHER FACTOR, THEN MR. CARTER WOULD BE THE NEXT MEMBER PROMOTED.
ON JUNE 19TH, 2024, DALLAS FIRE RESCUE CREATED THREE NEW FIRE LIEUTENANT POSITIONS AND PROMOTED THREE MEMBERS TO FIRE LIEUTENANT TO FILL THESE VACANCIES.
WHAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED WAS MR. CARTER AND NUMBER 48 AND 49 ON THE LIST WOULD'VE BEEN PROMOTED, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DECIDED TO DO.
INSTEAD, THEY SKIPPED MR. CARTER AND PROMOTED NUMBER 48 49 AND 50 TO FIRE LIEUTENANT.
THE NEXT DAY WAS JUNE 20TH, 2024, WHICH IS 18 MONTHS AFTER THE ORIGINAL PUBLICATION AND THE LIST EXPIRED.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHERE MR. CARTER WAS HARMED DUE TO BOTH THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF A CIVIL SERVICE ROLE.
HE WAS NUMBER 21 ON THE LIST AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED AT THIS POINT ALONG WITH MEMBERS 48 AND 49 CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.4.
SUBSECTION E STATES ON ANY DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION, THE NAMES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS MAKING PASSING GRADES SHALL BE PLACED ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST.
ANY PROMOTIONAL LIST SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THAT LIST CERTIFIED.
MR. DAVIS STATES IN HIS REPLY, IN HIS REPLY, THAT MR. CARTER WAS PLACED ON THE PROMOTIONAL REGISTRY OF, OF ELIGIBLES AS REQUIRED, BUT HE FAILS TO ADDRESS WHY HE WAS NOT PROMOTED WHEN A POSITION BECAME VACANT AND AVAILABLE, AND THREE MEMBERS WHO WERE 27 POSITIONS BELOW HIM ON THE FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL CO FINAL COMBINED SCORES LIST WERE PROMOTED.
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE IS CORRECT.
THE APPLICATION IS WRONG AND CAUSED MR. CARTER HARM DUE TO BEING SKIPPED WHEN HE HAD EARNED A PROMOTION TO FIRE LIEUTENANT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE TESTING PROCESS IS NOT ONLY TO CREATE A LIST OF ELIGIBLE MEMBERS WHO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES DEFINED IN THE JOB ANALYSIS THAT'S PREPARED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT TO QUANTITATIVELY MEASURE AND RANK THE MEMBERS BY ORDER OF PERFORMANCE ON THE ENTIRE TESTING PROCESS ADMINISTERED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT.
THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF FIREFIGHTERS IS DEFINED IN THE CODE OF RULES, RULES AND REGULATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, STARTING WITH THE DEFINITION OF PROMOTION, WHICH IS AN INCREASE IN GRADE WITH A RESULTING INCREASE IN SALARY DUE TO PLACEMENT IN A POSITION AS THEY REVOL RESULT OF A COMPETITIVE OR NON-COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS.
COMPETITIVE CLASSES DEFINED AS THOSE POSITIONS AND EMPLOYMENT FOR WHICH IT IS PRACTICAL TO DETERMINE THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF THE APPLICANT BY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
FURTHERMORE, SECTION 3.1 OF THE CODE STATES EVERY VACANCY IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE NOT FILLED BY PROMOTION, TRANSFER, REINSTATEMENT OR DEMOTION SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT FROM THE ELIGIBILITY LIST.
ESTABLISHED, ESTABLISHED FOR THAT POSITION UPON REQUISITION OF THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO ALL POSITIONS IN THE COMPETITIVE CLASS BY SELECTIONS OF PERSONS CERTIFIED FROM AN ELIGIBILITY LIST RESULTING FROM OPEN COMPETITIVE EMPLOYMENT, UH, EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS AND EXAMINATIONS HELD BY THE BOARD, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
SECTION 3.2 OF THE CODE FURTHER EMPHASIZES INTENT AND REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS AS TO HOW PROMOTIONS OCCUR BY STATING IF THE POSITION REQUIRES A COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION, THE ELIGIBILITY LIST WILL BE PREPARED IN ORDER OF MERIT AND FITNESS AS SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE SCORES OF THE AGGREGATE MARKING.
A COMPETITIVE EXAM IS PREPARED AND ADMINISTERED BY CIVIL SERVICE LIST OF ELIGIBLE MEMBERS AS COMPILED RANKED IN ORDER BY SCORES THAT REFLECT THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF EACH MEMBER.
THE EXPECTATION AMONGST ALL MEMBERS, AND THE INTENT OF THE PROCESS IS THAT PROMOTIONS ARE THEN MADE IN ORDER OF THE RESULTS OF THE, OF THE EXAMINATION AS A VACANCY OCCURS AT THAT RANK, THE CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO SKIP AROUND THE LIST OR PROMOTE OR PROMOTE ONE MEMBER OVER ANOTHER FOR ANY REASON.
THE INTENT OF THE PROCESS IS TO BE ORDERLY AND REGIMENTED WITH NO DEVIATION FROM THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF THE CI CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
THE US DISTRICT COURT OF NORTH NORTHERN TEXAS RULED ON A SIMILAR CASE BACK IN 1995 IN DALLAS FIREFIGHTERS VERSUS CITY OF DALLAS.
IT STATED THE POLICY OF RANKING SCORES ON VALIDATED TESTS CREATES AN EXPECTATION IN ALL FIREFIGHTERS THAT PROMOTION CAN BE EARNED BY STUDYING FOR THE TEST.
THE CITY SHOULD NOT UNDERMINE THIS EXPECTATION WITH SKIP PROMOTIONS THAT ARE NOT NARROWLY TAILORED.
MR. CARTER WAS HARMED BY THE DALLAS FIRE RES BY DALLAS FIRE RESCUE, THEN INTERIM CHIEF CHEST AND BALL, CHOOSING TO NOT PROMOTE HIM ON JUNE 19TH, 2024 WHEN MR. CARTER
[00:55:01]
WAS ON THE CERTIFIED LIST OF ELIGIBLE MEMBERS FOR PROMOTION TO FIRE LIEUTENANT.THREE NEW FIRE LIEUTENANT POSITIONS WERE CREATED AND PROMOTIONS WERE NOT IN ORDER OF THE RESULTS OF THE TEST, OF THE TEST WITH THE, THE, THE LIST THAT WAS PUBLISHED, THUS VIOLATING RULE THREE AND RULE FOUR OF THE CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
THE CODE ALSO ESTABLISHES UNDER RULE TWO, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SECTION 2.2, THAT THE ESTABLISHED RULES ARE CREATED, ADOPTED, AND ENFORCED AS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 16 OF THE DALLAS CITY CHARTER.
WE ARE REQUESTING THAT ALL ESTABLISHED RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CODE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD BE ENFORCED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
AND SUBSEQUENTLY, WE, THE, THE REQUEST ALL ALONG HAS BEEN HE, MR. CARTER TOOK THE TEST, HE SCORED WELL ENOUGH WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED.
UM, FIRE DEPARTMENT CHOSE TO SKIP HIM.
UH, WE WERE REQUESTING THAT HE BE PROMOTED TO FIRE LIEUTENANT AND BACK DATED TO JUNE 19TH WHEN THOSE POSITIONS BECAME VACANT AND AVAILABLE FOR PROMOTION JUNE 19TH, 2024.
UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR MY PRESENTATION.
UM, AS FAR AS WITNESSES, UH, I, I DIDN'T, THE CLAIM IS, I DIDN'T SUBMIT THE LIST.
UH, CHIEF DOMINIQUE ARTIS IS HERE.
CAN I ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS MS. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT? SURE.
UH, AT THIS TIME, THE CITY WOULD RE URGE ITS MOTION TO, UM, EXCLUDE CHIEF ARTIS FROM TESTIFYING FOR THE REASONS THAT HE WAS NOT DISCLOSED ON A WITNESS LIST.
FURTHERMORE, ANY TESTIMONY ELICITED, UM, SOUGHT TO BE ELICITED FROM CHIEF ARTIS IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT.
CHIEF ARTIS DID NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO SKIP OVER MR. CARTER, NOR DID HE HEAR ANY APPEAL AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OFFER ANY, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OFFER ANY RELEVANT TESTIMONY.
UM, A, A AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I AM CONCERNED THAT MR, THAT CHIEF ART'S NAME WASN'T SUBMITTED BY, UH, MR. CARTER AND THAT, AND, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
SO, UH, I MEAN, MR. ADE, I'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AGAIN.
SO, SO FOR THE RECORD, BUT, BUT THERE, THERE WERE DEADLINES THAT WERE, WERE, UH, I YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SENT IT TO, UH, EMMANUEL HERE AT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
WHEN WAS THAT DONE AND WAS THAT DONE TIMELY? I, I SENT, I ACTUALLY SENT THE LIST THE DAY I RECEIVED THE CITY'S LIST.
I RESPONDED TO THAT LIST WITH, WITH OUR LIST, WITH, WITH ALL OF THE, THE SAME THINGS THAT THEY HAD SENT US.
SO, UM, BUT THAT'S, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS ACTUALLY MAKES MY POINT IS THAT IF WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW RULES, LET'S FOLLOW RULES.
SO IF I, IF I DIDN'T SUBMIT IT IN TIME, THEN I DIDN'T SUBMIT IT IN TIME.
THE RELEVANCE OF CHIEF ARTIS IS JUST TO ESTABLISH, UM, THAT HE WAS, THAT THERE WERE PROMOTIONS THAT OCCURRED DURING HIS TIMEFRAME AND THAT HE DID NOT SKIP ANYBODY, UH, DURING HIS TIMEFRAME.
SO AS FAR AS THAT'S THE RELEVANCE, BUT YEAH, LET'S FOLLOW RULES RULE WAS BROKEN HERE BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
WELL, UM, A AGAIN, CHIEF ARTIS FOR JUST FROM YOUR TESTIMONY OR YOUR STATEMENT WOULD BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HIS, WHAT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES HE USED PREVIOUSLY.
I AND I, I DON'T SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THAT ON THIS ISSUE.
AND, AND, BUT DUE THE TIMELINESS ISSUE, I'M GONNA SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION BY MS. BURSET.
AND BOARD, IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY, WE ALWAYS HAVE A VOTE IF YOU, IF YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY WITH, WITH THAT RULING, SO, OKAY.
MS. MCDADE, DO YOU OR MR. CARTER HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY? UH, NO.
I THINK THE, THE CASE IS FAIRLY SIMPLE.
SO LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION HERE, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND MORE OF THE PROCEDURE, AND I, I I'LL GIVE MS. ETT THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AS WELL.
THOSE POSITIONS, THOSE THREE POSITIONS WERE FILLED BY THE BY DFR? YES, SIR.
AND YOU CONTEND THAT MR. MR. CARTER WAS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO WAS, WAS PROMOTED TO LIEUTENANT? CORRECT.
SO IF THAT, IF, IF WE WERE TO UPHOLD THE, YOUR, WE WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR, YOUR CONTENTIONS, WOULD THAT MEAN THAT SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN PROMOTED WOULD NOW NOT BE PROMOTED AND WOULD, WOULD GO BACK TO A LOWER RANK? SO WE'RE NOT HERE TO DIS, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE, THE ISSUE AT HAND IS MR. CARTER AND MR. CARTER BEING SKIPPED.
[01:00:01]
HAVE OCCURRED IS THAT MR. CARTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED AS NUMBER 21 ON THE LIST, AND THEN THE NEXT PEOPLE DOWN, WHICH WERE 47 AND 48 ON THE LIST.SO ONE PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROMOTED THAT, THAT THAT PERSON HAS ALREADY BEEN PROMOTED AT THIS TIME.
THEY'VE ALREADY COMPLETED THEIR PROBATION.
THERE ARE VACANCIES THAT, THAT WE DO NOW HAVE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE AN ACTIVE LIST.
BUT THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A DECISION FOR US TO MAKE.
AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS.
WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS MR. CARTER AND HIM BEING SKIPPED IN THIS PROMOTION.
MS. PSET, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO YOU'D LIKE TO SAY? UH, MR. CHAIR, IT'S OKAY TO SAY NO IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, ANYTHING,
YOU ACCURATELY, UM, ANTICIPATED ONE OF THE POINTS THAT I WAS GONNA MAKE HERE IN MY CLOSING ARGUMENT, SO, OKAY.
CHRIS, DID YOU WANNA GO AHEAD? WE HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET.
CHRIS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I'M SORRY, PAM? YEAH, UH, I HAD A QUESTION, BUT YOU CAN GO FIRST, PAM.
WAS ANYBODY BEFORE THE NUMBER 21, MR. CARTER'S NUMBER 21, WAS THERE ANYONE BEFORE HIM THAT WAS NOT SELECTED AND THEY WOULD'VE ROLLED OVER INTO THIS GROUP? SO LET'S SAY IT WAS NUMBER 18 FOR THE PREVIOUS SELECTION OF VACANT SPOTS? NO, BECAUSE THEY WERE, OKAY.
SO THERE WAS NO ONE AHEAD OF HIM.
UM, WHEN THE LIST, THE LIST COMES OUT, THE VACANCIES ARE FILLED IN ORDER, UM, AT, OF, OF THE LIST.
SO, AND, AND HE WAS, HE ONCE THE LIST, LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, THE, HE WAS PLACED ON THE LIST BASICALLY AT THE 17 MONTH, 17 MONTH MARK OF THE LIST BEING ACTIVE.
AND AT THAT POINT THERE WAS 27 PEOPLE THAT WERE ALREADY BEEN PROMOTED THAT SCORED LOWER THAN HE DID ON, ON THE EXAMINATION.
NOW HAD, HAD THE POSITIONS NOT BEEN CREATED BECAUSE AT, AT THE, THE WAY IT ALWAYS WORKS IN DALLAS FIRE IS AS SOMEBODY RETIRES, THAT IF THERE'S AN ACTIVE LIST THERE, THAT PROMOTION IS AUTOMATICALLY MADE ON THE DATE OF RETIREMENT.
UM, SO HAD THE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THAT LIST CAME OUT IN THE 17TH MONTH, IF THOSE POSITIONS WERE NOT CREATED, THERE WERE NO RETIREMENTS DURING THAT TIMEFRAME, AND THE LIST JUST WOULD'VE EXPIRED AND IT WOULD'VE EXPIRED WITH MR. CARTER BEING NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST.
ONCE THOSE
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RULES TODAY.
UH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS, HAVE, UH, HAS MR. CARTER, HAS THERE BEEN ANY LEGAL OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST HIM IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN HIS, IN HIS TIME THERE? WELL, HE, HE WAS TERMINATED.
UM, HE, HE WAS AWARDED HIS JOB BACK ON APPEAL, AND HE DID NOT GET ANY BACK PAY FOR THOSE TWO YEARS THAT HE WAS UNEMPLOYED.
SO IT WAS BASICALLY CONSIDERED A LONG SUSPENSION.
SO THERE, THERE, THERE WAS, THERE WERE, UH, THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES TO THAT QUESTION.
AND, AND WHY, WHY WAS HE TERMINATED? UH, IT IT, IT HAD TO DO WITH, UH, I, I DON'T, I, I ACTUALLY WASN'T PART OF THE CASE, SO I, UM, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HERE TO DIS TO DISCUSS THAT.
WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THE, HE WAS, UH, ALLOWED TO TAKE THE TEST.
HE WAS EVALUATED AMONGST HIS PEERS ON THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES FOR THE JOB.
UM, SCORED WELL ENOUGH ON THE TEST WHERE HE WAS PUT ON THE LIST, AND, UH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.
HEARING NONE, MS. PSET, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
MS. MCED, I ASSUME YOU'VE CONCLUDED YOUR PRESENTATION CORRECT? YEAH.
IF, IF, UH, IF MR. DAVIS TESTIFIES, WILL I BE ABLE TO AN ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS? SURE.
OKAY, MR. ETT? THANK YOU, MR. WELCH.
I WANNA START OUT BY THANKING YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING, AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER.
I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE AS YOU'LL SEE, THIS IS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CASE IN HIS GRIEVANCE.
MR. CARTER COMPLAINS THAT HE WAS SKIPPED OVER WHEN DFR DECIDED NOT TO PROMOTE UNTIL LIEUTENANT.
BUT, AND I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH, THIS HEARING IS NOT ABOUT THE FIRE CHIEF'S PROMOTIONAL DECISIONS.
THAT MAY SOUND A LITTLE STRANGE, BUT IT'S TRUE, AND IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH THE SCOPE OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY.
WHEN WE LOOK AT MR. CARTER'S GRIEVANCE, UH, LETTER LATER, THIS, THIS HEARING, YOU'LL SEE THAT HE ALLEGES THREE SEPARATE RULES THAT WERE VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS NOT PROMOTED TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT.
FIRST, HE CITES SECTION 4.4 E OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, WHICH ADDRESSES THE GEN, WHICH ADDRESSES THE GENERATION AND DURATION OF PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LISTS FOR POSITIONS IN DFR.
SECOND, MR. CARTER SIDE, SECTION THREE 20.00
[01:05:02]
F OF DFR MANUAL OF PROCEDURES, OTHERWISE KNOWN ASPS.AND THAT SECTION, THES ARE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY ADDRESS D'S PROCESS FOR AWARDING, TERMINATE, UH, AWARDING PROMOTIONS.
AND THIRD, MR. CARTER CITES SECTION 34, 36 B12 OF THE CITY'S PERSONNEL RULES, WHICH PROHIBIT DISTURBANCES IN THE WORKPLACE.
HOWEVER, THE CITY'S PERSONNEL RULES MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE WHETHER DDFR VIOLATED MOP SECTION THREE 20 OR SECTION 34, 36 B12 OF THE PERSONNEL RULES, RATHER SECTIONS 34, 38, C4 B, AND 34 38 I, ONE OF THE CITY'S PERSONNEL RULES ONLY ALLOW GRIEVANCES TO BE APPEALED TO THIS BOARD WHEN, NUMBER ONE, THE GRIEVANCE MAKES A CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A PROTECTED CATEGORY SUCH AS RACE, SEX, OR AGE.
AND THAT ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATORY DECISION AFFECTS AN EMPLOYEE'S TRAINING, PROMOTION, ADVANCEMENT, OR TRANSFER.
OR NUMBER TWO, THE GRIEVANCE RELATES TO AN INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF A CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
YOU'LL SEE THAT THE GRIEVANCE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM REFERENCE ANY KIND OF DISCRIMINATION.
THEREFORE, WE ARE, AS MR. MCDADE NOTED IN HIS EARLIER PRESENTATION, SOLELY PROCEEDING UNDER THE, THE, THE SECOND OPTION, WHICH IS THE, UH, RELATING TO INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
IMPORTANTLY, THE ONLY CIVIL SERVICE RULE REFERENCED IN MR. CARTER'S GRIEVANCE IS RULE 4.4 E.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL HERE TODAY TO DECIDE WHETHER, UH, THE CITY VIOLATED THAT RULE.
UM, NOT DFR, MOP THREE 20, NOT ANY PURPORTED VIOLATION OF THE PERSONNEL RULES JUST RULE 4.4 E.
AND THAT RULE IS CLEAR ON ITS FACE.
MR. MCDADE ESSENTIALLY URGES YOU TO LOOK AT EFFECTIVELY, QUOTE UNQUOTE, LIKE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE INTENT, AND WHAT WERE THE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS.
NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT, NOR IS IT APPROPRIATE.
RULE 4.4 E IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ON ITS FACE.
THE ONLY THINGS THAT IT REQUIRES IS THAT CIVIL SERVICE GENERATE A PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT HAS THE NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY PASS GRADES ON THE PROMOTIONAL EXAM, AND THAT THAT LIST REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS.
THE TEST, UM, IMPORTANTLY, UM, MR. MCDADE REFERENCED A NUMBER OF OTHER RULES THAT HE NOW CLAIMS WERE PURPORTEDLY VIOLATED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU THAT SECTION 34 39 A FIVE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR ANY MATTER NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL GRIEVANCE.
THEREFORE, ANY REFERENCE TO ANY OTHER CIVIL SERVICE RULES THAT WERE PURPORTEDLY VIOLATED, UM, IS IMPROPER AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.
THE EVIDENCE IN THIS HEARING IS VERY CLEAR, UM, THAT IN UNDISPUTED, IN FACT, THAT MR. CARTER DID MAKE A PASSING GRADE ON THE LIEUTENANT'S PROMOTIONAL EXAM.
NUMBER TWO, THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT DID PLACE HIS NAME ON THE FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST.
AND NUMBER THREE, THAT THAT LIST DID IN FACT, REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR EXACTLY 18 MONTHS.
THAT'S ALL CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.4 E REQUIRES.
UM, SO ANY DISCUSSION OF MATTERS APART FROM THESE THREE SIMPLE THINGS IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DECISION, WILL BE TASKED WITH MAKING AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS HEARING.
UM, WANT TO REEMPHASIZE, IT WAS STATED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS HEARING THAT AS THE APPELLATE, MR. CARTER HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE CITY VIOLATED CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.4 E.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS BURDEN, THIS IS A BURDEN HE CANNOT SATISFY.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE TWO, TWO WITNESSES.
IF MR. UN, UNLESS Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING, I I DON'T, BUT ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? OKAY.
AT THIS TIME, THE CITY CALLS WILLIAM CARTER TO THE STAND.
MR. CARTER, I JUST REMIND YOU AS IT WILL EVERY WITNESS THAT YOU'RE UNDER OATH.
WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD? WILLIAM JORDAN CARTER.
AND NOW YOU'RE CURRENTLY A DRIVER ENGINEER IN THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
IF I USE THE TERM DFR, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I'M REFERRING, UM, USING THAT AS SHORTHAND FOR THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
AND NOW, PREVIOUSLY YOU WERE TERMINATED FROM DFR? CORRECT.
AND THAT WAS FOR LYING ABOUT HAVING COVID STEALING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN COVID LEAVE AND YOU'RE RESULTING FELONY ARREST.
[01:10:01]
TERMINATION TO A TRIAL BOARD? CORRECT.UH, YOU STIPULATED TO PHASE ONE OF THAT TRIAL BOARD.
UM, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
CAN WE, CAN WE OBJECT TO THESE QUESTIONS? WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS THE TERMINATION OR WHAT OCCURRED BEFORE.
WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THIS SPECIFIC RULE AND THE PROMOTIONAL PROCESS.
MR. CHAIR, IT'S, IT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT PROMPTED THE, THE TRIAL BOARD ORDER, WHICH THEN IN TURN ALLOWED MR. CARTER TO TAKE THE TEST.
ADDITIONALLY, UH, MR AS THE EVIDENCE SHOWS AND HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED, MR. CARTER FURTHER, UM, STIPULATED TO A DISHONESTY RULE VIOLATION AND GOES THROUGH CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, WHICH IS ALWAYS AT ISSUE.
YEAH, I, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION.
MR. CARTER, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU AND SHARE ON THE SCREEN WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS CITY'S EXHIBIT B, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED.
SPECIFICALLY, I'M REFERRING TO PAGE COD 10.
AND ARE YOU ALL ABLE TO SEE THAT AND I, NO, MA'AM.
ONE MOMENT, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
UM, I HAVE A MESSAGE SAYING THAT YOU'RE SHARING ADOBE ACROBAT.
IS, IS ANYONE ABLE TO VIEW THAT? YES.
YEAH, WE, I THINK WE ARE AS WELL.
UH, MR. CARTER, I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS PAGE THAT I'M SHOWING UP HERE ON THE SCREEN, COD 0 1 0.
UM, THIS IS THE COVER LETTER THAT MR. DAVIS DELIVERED FOLLOWING THE, UH, ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED IN YOUR TRIAL BOARD.
UM, STATES HERE, THE TRIAL BOARD HAS HEARD THE TERMINATION APPEAL OF WILLIAM J. CARTER ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18TH, 2023, HAS REINSTATED MR. CARTER SEA RULING ATTACHED.
MR. CARTER STIPULATED TO THE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS IN PHASE ONE.
THEREFORE, THE ONLY ISSUE CONTESTED ISSUE, THEREFORE, THE ONLY ISSUE CONTESTED WAS THE PHASE TWO DISCIPLINE ISSUE.
DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? YES.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU STIPULATED A PHASE ONE OF THIS TRIAL BOARD, CORRECT? MEANING THAT YOU AGREED THAT YOU COMMITTED THE RULE OF VIOLATIONS OF DISHONESTY, THEFT, MISCONDUCT, DISREGARD A PUBLIC TRUST.
WE, WE GOTTA OBJECT TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS.
WE'RE GETTING INTO WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
HE'S BEEN DISCIPLINED FOR THIS.
HE WAS DISCIPLINED SIGNIFICANTLY, ALMOST A TWO YEAR SUSPENSION.
UH, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE, UH, UNLESS WE'RE GETTING INTO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
I MEAN, IF, IF SHE'S ADMITTING THAT THE CITY PUNISHED HIM TWICE BY, BY THE SUSPENSION AND ALSO NOT ALLOWING, NOT AWARDING A EARNED PROMOTION, THEN IT, IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT TURNS INTO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
IF, IF WE'RE PUNISHING HIM AGAIN FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
UM, SO NUMBER ONE, NOT AWARDING SOMEONE A PROMOTION IS NOT DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
UH, AND I'M, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE ON.
WELL, I'M, AGAIN, MS. ADE BROUGHT UP PRACTICES UNDER, UNDER CHIEF ARTISTS, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO I, I'M NOT SURE THE RELEVANCE OF THAT.
I THINK, I THINK WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS WHAT OCCURRED.
I I'M NOT SURE THERE'S MUCH MORE TO, UH, POINT TO DRIVE HOME HERE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT HE WAS TERMINATED AS MS. MCDADE STATED.
AS MS. ETTE STATED HE WAS TERMINATED AND REINSTATED, AND THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY.
AND HE DIDN'T OBJECT TO THE REASONS WHY.
SO FOR THE, FOR THE TERMINATION, HE OBJECTED ON THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF IT.
SO I, I, I THINK THAT'S ESTABLISHED.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT SHEDS A LOT OF LIGHT ON, ON, UH, THE, THE ALLEGED MISINTERPRETATION OF THE RULE.
NOW, MR. CARTER, WHILE YOU ARE AWAITING YOUR TRIAL BOARD HEARING A FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAM WAS HELD, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND THAT EXAM CONSISTED OF BOTH A WRITTEN TEST AND AN ASSESSMENT CENTER? CORRECT.
AFTER YOU WERE REINSTATED, YOU WERE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE ALTERNATE FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAM, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
[01:15:01]
GRADE ON THAT EXAM? CORRECT.AND YOUR NAME WAS PLACED ON AN AMENDED PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST DATED MAY 14TH, 2024? UH, I BELIEVE SO, YES, MA'AM.
UH, MR. CARTER, I'M NOW SHARING THE SCREEN CITY'S EXHIBIT C AT COD 14 AND 15.
ARE YOU ABLE TO VIEW THAT? YES, MA'AM.
AND IT INDICATES THAT IT WAS POSTED ON MAY 14TH, 2024.
AND IF WE TURN TO COD 15, THAT'S YOUR NAME HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AT NUMBER 21, DO YOU SEE THAT? YES, MA'AM.
UM, SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY EXHIBIT C INDICATES THAT YOU WERE IN FACT PLACED ON AN AMENDED PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST? YES, I WAS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND.
THE ISSUE WAS THAT I WAS NOT PROMOTED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
MOVED TO STRIKE, UH, AS NON-RESPONSIVE? UH, I, I'LL OVERRULE THAT OBJECTION.
I MEAN, AGAIN, JUST KEEP ON ASKING QUESTIONS.
I I THINK A LOT OF THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ALREADY, BUT PLEASE PROCEED TO MR. UM, AND NOW THAT FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST EXPIRED ON JUNE 20TH, 2024? YES.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST WAS PUBLISHED 18 MONTHS BEFORE ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2022, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND CAN WE AGREE THAT INTERIM FIRE CHIEF JUSTIN BALL DID NOT PROMOTE YOU TO LIEUTENANT PRIOR TO THE PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST EXPIRING ON JUNE 20TH, 2024? CORRECT.
AFTER THE LIST EXPIRED, YOU FIRED FILED A GRIEVANCE BASED ON YOUR FAILURE TO BE PROMOTED TO LIEUTENANT, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
SUBSEQUENTLY, YOU FILED A GRIEVANCE ABOUT YOUR FAILURE TO RECEIVE THAT PROMOTION? YES, MA'AM.
AND IS CITY CO, UH, CITY'S EXHIBIT D, UM, PAGES, UH, SORRY, CITY'S EXHIBIT DCOD 0 2 4 THROUGH 0 2 6, COPY OF YOUR GRIEVANCE? YES.
AND YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT RULE 4.4 E IS THE ONLY CIVIL SERVICE RULE REFERENCE IN YOUR GRIEVANCE? UM, YES.
UH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DEV OGEE LATER HELD A HEARING ON YOUR GRIEVANCE? YES, MA'AM.
AND WE SEE IN EXHIBIT E THAT MS. OGGI ULTIMATELY DENIED YOUR GRIEVANCE.
MS. MCDADE, ANY QUESTIONS? UM, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S YOUR WITNESS, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU'D LIKE TO BRING OUT? NO.
I MEAN, UH, ONCE, ONCE, ONCE YOU, ONCE YOU TOOK THE TEST, UM, AND THE LIST CAME OUT WHERE YOU WERE NUMBER 21, UM, AND HAD EVERYBODY HAD PEOPLE BELOW YOU BEEN PROMOTED AT THAT TIME, CORRECT? YES.
UH, APPROXIMATELY 27 PEOPLE HAD.
SO IT WAS YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT IF A POSITION BECAME AVAILABLE THAT YOU WOULD BE THE NEXT PERSON, CORRECT? UH, THAT'S AFFIRMATIVE.
DID ANYBODY FROM THE CITY OF THE, FROM DALLAS FIRE RESCUE THAT REPRESENTS THE COMMAND STAFF CONTACT YOU TO TELL YOU YOU HAD BEEN PROMOTED? YES, SIR.
UH, CAPTAIN AKA WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE TRANSFER LIST, UM, THERE WAS A TRANSFER LIST ABOUT TO COME OUT TO COME OUT ABOUT ONCE EVERY QUARTER, AND HE CALLED ME AND TOLD ME, DO NOT PUT A TRANSFER LIST IN FOR A DRIVER POSITION BECAUSE YOU WILL BE PROMOTED TO LIEUTENANT ON THIS LIST.
WHAT DATE DID HE TELL YOU THAT I, I'M GONNA OBJECT TO RELEVANCE.
THAT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RULE 4.4 E.
UM, WHAT ANYONE ELSE AND, AND DFR SAID HAS SNOW BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THIS HEARING? THIS HEARING IS SOLELY ABOUT WHAT CIVIL SERVICE DID AND WHETHER THEY GENERATED THE LIST AND WHETHER THAT LIST REMAINED IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS.
WELL, I'M, I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEARSAY ASPECT OF IT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY MR. DEBAKEY HERE TO, TO TALK TO US, AND HE WASN'T LISTED AS A, AS A, AS A WITNESS.
HE WAS LISTED AS A, IT WAS LISTED AS A CITY OF DALLAS WITNESS ORIGINALLY, BUT HE IS NOT HERE.
NONETHELESS, IT WAS, IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME ON A SUBPOENA LIST.
SO, AND, AND I MAY, THE CITY DID RELEASE ALL OF ITS WITNESSES EXCEPT FOR, FROM ITS SUBPOENA, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR. DAVIS.
[01:20:01]
UH, I'M GONNA SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.UM, AND AS THIS FINAL WITNESS, THE CITY WOULD NOW CALL, UH, MR. JARED DAVIS TO THE STAND.
WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD? JARED DAVIS.
ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED? MR. DAVIS? MR. DAVIS, LET ME REMIND YOU THAT YOU'RE UNDER OATH AS WELL.
UH, MR. DAVIS, ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED? YES.
WITH WHOM? THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT POSITION? CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SECRETARY AND DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.
UM, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH, UH, MR. CARTER? YES, I BECAME FAMILIAR WITH MR. CARTER WHEN HE FILED HIS GRIEVANCE APPEAL AT MY LEVEL.
UM, NOW, AFTER MR. CARTER WAS REINSTATED ON OCTOBER, 2023, WAS HE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE TEST FOR THE PRIOR LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAM? YES.
UM, THE REINSTATEMENT ORDER, UM, WAS AMBIGUOUS IN ON ITS FACE, BUT HE WAS NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED TO EXAMINE, UM, AND PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSMENT CENTER FOR, FOR LIEUTENANT UPON REINSTATEMENT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT? CORRECT.
AND NOW, GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF A CITY EMPLOYEE IS CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE TO TAKE A PROMOTIONAL TEST, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE DEPARTMENT MUST PROMOTE HIM OR HER? UM, NO.
IT, IT, WE GENERATE AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RULES, UM, ON BEHALF OF THIS BOARD.
WE CAUSE A PROMOTIONAL EXAM TO HAPPEN, GENERATE THAT LIST, UH, IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT BASED ON MERIT AND FITNESS.
AND THAT THEN IS FURNISHED TO THE CHIEF OF BOTH OUR SWORN SERVICES, POLICE AND FIRE.
SO THEY CAN MAKE THEIR DECISIONS, UM, ON HOW THEY CHOOSE TO PROMOTE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS.
AND NOW, DID MR. CARTER MAKE A PASSING GRADE ON THE FIRE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAM? HE DID MAKE A PASSING GRADE ON THE EXAM.
WAS HE PLACED ON A LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST? HE WAS PLACED ON THE LIEUTENANT'S ELIGIBILITY LIST.
I, I WANT TO SAY, UM, AS NUMBER 21 OR SO.
UM, AND AS PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST, THE SAME THING AS, UH, WHAT'S SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS PROMOTIONAL REGISTER OF ELIGIBLES? YES.
OH, JUST, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I WASN'T MISSPEAKING.
UM, NOW WHAT DEPARTMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING CANDIDATES WITH PASSING GRADES ON A PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST? THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING CANDIDATES WITH PASSING GRADES ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN THIS CASE.
DO YOU RECALL WHEN MR. CARTER WAS PLACED ON THAT AMENDED PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST? I, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR REGISTER.
I, I KNOW WE, WE, WE PRODUCED, SO THE AMENDED ONE WOULD'VE COME OUT MAY 14TH, 2024.
THAT'S WOULD BE THE POST-IT DATE.
SO HE WOULD'VE BEEN PLACED, HE WOULD'VE BEEN THE ONLY PERSON PLACED ON THAT LIST.
SO THAT'S WHEN HE WOULD'VE BEEN PLACED ON THE 14TH OF MAY OF 2024.
AND IF WE, UM, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THIS IS AN AMENDED LIST, CORRECT? THIS IS AN AMENDED LIST.
UH, WHY WOULD YOU EVER HAVE AN AMENDED LIST AND NOT JUST STICK WITH AN ORIGINAL PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST? ORDINARILY THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IF WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE OUT ON, UM, FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE OUT UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OR OUT UNDER, UM, FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, MILITARY LEAVE, OR A DA, SOME OF THOSE KIND OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY RETURN BACK TO THE WORKFORCE, UH, WE WOULD AMEND THE LIST TO INCLUDE THEIR NAME, PROVIDED THEY HAVE PASSING SCORES.
UM, AND DO YOU SEE MR. CARTER'S NAME ON THAT AMENDED PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST? YES, UH, AT NUMBER 21.
UM, NOW I WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT, UH, CITY'S EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST.
UM, DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT LIST WAS FIRST PUBLISHED? IT WOULD'VE BEEN PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2022.
AND HOW LONG WAS THAT LIST IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS, IT WOULD'VE BEEN SET TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 20TH, 2024 AS THE LIST IS.
DOES THAT 18 MONTH PERIOD REQUIRED BY RULE 4.4 E RESTART WHENEVER AN AMENDED PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST IS PUBLISHED? NO, MA'AM.
UM, THE LIST, THE ORIGINAL REGISTER GOES INTO EFFECT THE DAY IT'S POSTED.
ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS DOESN'T STOP THE 18 MONTH CLOCK.
[01:25:01]
THAT PARTICULAR LIST FOR THAT CHIEF'S CONSIDERATION.AND HOW, IF AT ALL, CAN A PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR MORE THAN 18 MONTHS? THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD CALL A, A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION.
UM, THIS BODY HAS SEEN THIS, THOSE BEFORE, WHERE THE CHIEF WILL SEND A REQUEST, UH, WITH RATIONALE OVER TO ME TO EXTEND THE LIST BEYOND 18 MONTHS.
AND THEN I BRING THAT AS A BOARD ITEM TO THIS BOARD, UM, FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO EXTEND THAT LIST BEYOND 18 MONTHS.
BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A REQUEST OF THE CHIEF TO EXTEND THE LIST.
DID THAT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE? NO, MA'AM.
THE CHIEF DID NOT REQUEST TO EXTEND THE LIEUTENANT'S PROMOTIONAL REGISTER THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2022.
MR. DAVIS, ARE YOU AWARE OF MR. OF WHETHER MR. CARTER WAS PROMOTED TO LIEUTENANT BASED ON THE LIST THAT EXPIRED ON 6 20 24? UM, I AM AWARE THAT HE WAS NOT PROMOTED, UM, BASED ON THE LIST YOU JUST ASKED ME ABOUT, UPON THE RECEIPT OF HIS GRIEVANCE, WHERE HE ALLEGES THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS NOT PROMOTED AND, AND THEREFORE, UM, WANTED TO PURSUE A GRIEVANCE, UM, THROUGH ME AND THEN ONTO THIS BODY.
AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO AFTER RECEIVING THE GRIEVANCE APPEAL REQUEST FROM MR. CARTER? YEAH, THE NORMAL PROCEDURE IS AFTER I RECEIVE A GRIEVANCE REQUEST, UM, I SET UP A GRIEVANCE HEARING MEETING, UM, WITH THE GRIEVANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, SHOULD THEY HAVE ONE IF IT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.
UM, I MET, UM, TO UNDERSTAND IN THE PARTICULARS OF THE GRIEVANCE WITH BOTH MR. MCDA REPRESENTATIVE AND MR. CARTER, UM, AS THE GRIEVANT.
AND, UM, WE, WE TALKED THROUGH, UM, A GREAT MANY THINGS, AND THEN I CONDUCTED SOME REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER THINGS TO ARRIVE AT MY CONCLUSION THAT I, THAT I LATER, UM, WROTE BACK TO MR. CARTER.
AND COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN FOR THE BOARD WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES AN APPEAL AN EMPLOYEE CAN APPEAL A GRIEVANCE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD? YES.
UM, AN EMPLOYEE CAN APPEAL, UM, TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD IF THEY ARE CLAIMING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON PROTECTED CATEGORY OR A MISAPPLICATION OF A CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
SO, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE TWO PRONGS THAT FOLK WILL MEET WITH ME, WE'LL MAKE A DECISION, AND THEN I'LL BRING IT FORWARD TO THE BOARD IF, IF, IF THEY'RE NOT SATISFIED WITH, WITH MY DETERMINATION, BUT FOR THOSE TWO REASONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF AN EMPLOYEE IS BRINGING, UH, A GRIEVANCE, UH, FOR FAILING TO BE PROMOTED BASED ON DISCRIMINATION, NOW THAT IS PROPERLY HEARD BY THE BOARD, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? NO, NO, IT IS NOT.
NOR WAS THAT A PART OF THE SCOPE OF MY INVESTIGATION, UM, TO UN TO UNDERSTAND THE GRIEVANCE EVEN BEFORE MAKING A DETERMINATION.
UH, DO YOU RECALL WHAT RULE MR. CARTER CLAIMED THAT WERE VIOLATED IN HIS GRIEVANCE? YES, BY THE LETTER OF HIS GRIEVANCE, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, IN ORDER, UM, MOP 3 0 2 OR THREE 20, UM, RELATED TO THE DEPART, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S PROMOTIONAL, UM, INTERNAL DEPARTMENTAL RULE.
THE SECOND ONE WAS 4.4 E OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, UM, CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS.
AND THE THIRD WAS A REFERENCE TO, UM, A PERSONNEL RULE, 30 SOMETHING.
ANOTHER, I, I DON'T RECALL RIGHT OFF MY HEAD, BUT IT WAS RELATED TO A PERSONNEL RULE.
SO, WHICH ANY OF THOSE RULES, UM, ARE PROPERLY APPEALABLE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD? 4.4 E.
UM, NOW YOU TESTIFIED JUST A BIT AGO THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT GENERATES THE PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
DOES THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAVE THE POWER TO FORCE, UH, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PROMOTE A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE? NO, WE, WE DO NOT, UM, HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR RECOMMEND THE PRACTICE OF DIRECTING, UH, A CHIEF OF A DEPARTMENT ON WHAT TO DO IN TERMS OF HIS OR HER PROMOTIONS? NO, MA'AM.
AND DOES CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.4 E IMPOSE ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER ON DFR? NO, IT DOES NOT.
HOW, IF AT ALL, DID YOU DOCUMENT YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING MR. CARTER'S LETTER? UM, AFTER MEETING WITH MR. CARTER AND, AND REVIEWING THE, THE FACTS RELATED TO HIS GRIEVANCE, I WROTE HIM A LETTER, UM, THAT I BELIEVE IS A PART OF THE MATERIAL TODAY.
UM, OUTLINING, UM, MY CONCLUSION.
AND SPECIFICALLY, YOU'RE REFERRING TO CITY'S EXHIBIT F, UH, BEGINNING ON PAGE COD 0 2 9, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
IF WE LOOK AT THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT LETTER, NOT LETTING YOU HIGHLIGHT, BUT IT'S THE SENTENCE BEGINNING AFTER INVESTIGATING.
[01:30:01]
IT? UH, YES.IF YOU, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, AFTER INVESTIGATING THE FACTS RELATIVE TO YOUR GRIEVANCE, I DO NOT FIND CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.4 E SWORN SERVICE CERTIFICATION AND PROMOTIONS IN THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE.
DO YOU STILL, DO YOU STILL AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT AS WE SIT HERE TODAY? YES, MA'AM, I DO.
NOW, MR. DAVIS, JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION.
UH, WHAT CONCERNS, IF ANY, DO YOU HAVE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GIVING MR. CARTER THE RELIEF HE HAS REQUESTED IN HIS GRIEVANCE, WHICH IS THAT HE BE RETROACTIVELY PROMOTED TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT? UH, I, I HAVE, I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, UM, BECAUSE IF WE WOULD BE, IN ESSENCE, UM, SUBSTITUTING OUR JUDGMENT AND OUR DECISION FOR, FOR THE CHIEF'S DECISION, AND THAT WOULD BE A BAD PRACTICE, I BELIEVE, TO SET UP IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TO FUNCTION IN A, IN AN OBJECTIVE FASHION TO ENSURE THAT THE TEST OCCURS, THE LIST IS PREPARED BASED ON MERIT AND FITNESS.
UM, WE MORE OR LESS, WE, AND I SAY BOTH DEPARTMENT AND BOARD ARE MORE RELATED TO POLICY.
AND I, I WOULD HAVE VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, UM, ABOUT WHAT PRECEDENT THAT WOULD SET IF WE BEGAN TO MAKE DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF OR URGE THEM TO MAKE CERTAIN PROMOTIONAL DECISIONS.
UM, I MAINTAIN THAT IT IS OUR DUTY AND, AND MY DUTY ON BEHALF OF THIS BOARD TO INCUR, UH, TO, TO ENSURE THAT THIS LIST OCCURS, UM, AND THAT WE HAVE THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE THAT THE CHIEF CAN PROPERLY RECRUIT AND PROMOTE INDIVIDUALS.
'CAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO, TO THE CULTURE, UH, AND THE, AND THE WORKING DYNAMIC OF, OF FOLK AND SWORN SERVICE AS WELL.
MR. MCDADE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAVIS? UH, YES.
UM, SO YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THAT TEST TEST ADMINISTRATION IS, PROMOTIONAL TEST ADMINISTRATION IS ONE OF YOUR JOB RESPONSIBILITIES, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UM, ON THE CITY OF DALLAS WEBSITE, HOW DOES IT DESCRIBE RECRUITMENT AND EXAMINATION AS PART OF YOUR JOB? OBJECTION.
UM, RELEVANCE AND NUMBER TWO, THAT'S NOT PART OF ANY EXHIBIT BEFORE THE BOARD.
UH, I, I'M NOT SURE THE RELEVANCE OF IT, BUT I, I'LL ALLOW MR. DAVIS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
UM, NOT HAVING THE WEBSITE MR. MCDADE PULLED UP IN FRONT OF ME, I REALLY CAN'T ANSWER, UM, THE, THE QUESTION THAT YOU ARE, YOU'RE ASKING ME.
WELL, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE ANSWERED IT A COUPLE TIMES BECAUSE YOU'VE BROUGHT UP YOURSELF MERIT AND FITNESS.
UM, SO WHAT IT SAYS, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT SAYS, MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE CITY THAT IS OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO ALL QUALIFIED INDIVI INDIVIDUALS FAIR IN ITS APPLICATION BASED ON MERIT AND FITNESS.
SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE MERIT AND FITNESS? OBJECTION, RELEVANCE.
YOU'VE BROUGHT IT UP YOURSELF.
YEAH, I, WELL, AGAIN, YOU READ THAT TO HIM AND, AND, AND AGAIN, I'M, I'M NOT SURE THAT DEFINITION, THOSE DEFINITIONS AND THOSE TERMS RELATE TO FOUR OR 4.4 E OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
SO, I MEAN, MERIT AND FITNESS ARE INVOLVED IN EVERY CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM THAT I'M AWARE OF.
AND, AND AGAIN, IF THAT WERE PART OF THE DEFINITION OF 4.4 E, I'D THINK THAT'D BE RELEVANT.
BUT I'M GONNA, SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, OKAY.
UH, SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AS THE, AS THE RELEVANCE OF, OF THAT.
THE RELEVANCE IS THAT, THAT THE LIST IS CREATED BASED ON MERIT AND FITNESS AS DEFINED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE SEEM TO BE JUST FOCUSING ON THAT, THAT ONE RULE, BUT IT'S THE, IT'S THE OVERALL, IT'S ALL OF THE RULES COMBINED THAT MAKE UP THE, THE WHOLE SYSTEM THAT IS USED.
UM, SO MR. DAVIS, WHEN, WHEN Y'ALL ARE COM COMPILING A LIST, UH, WHAT FACTORS GO INTO THAT WHEN A PROMOTIONAL TEST IS GIVEN, WHAT FACTORS GO INTO THE COMP COMPILING THE LIST? I'M SORRY.
WHEN YOU ASK FACTORS, COULD YOU BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC, UH, TO MAKE SURE I ANSWER YOU ACCURATELY? SO, TYPICALLY A PROMOTIONAL TEST, UM, FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONSISTS OF HOW MANY PARTS, UM, MORE THAN LIKELY, YOU KNOW, AS YOU MOVE UP THE RANK AT LIEUTENANT.
IN THIS CASE, I'LL TALK ABOUT THIS CASE FOR SURE.
IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE A WRITTEN EXAM AND AN ASSESSMENT CENTER COMPONENT.
SO ANY OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE, THAT ARE USED TO CREATE A LIST, UM, WE TAKE THE HOW THEY, HOW A CANDIDATE PERFORMS IN BOTH SECTIONS.
UM, THOSE ARE WEIGHTED DIFFERENTLY.
AND OF COURSE, THOSE, UH, ASSESSMENTS AND, UM, WRITTEN EXAMS ARE, ALL OF THAT IS SET OUT BY SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WHO PERFORM THE JOB.
[01:35:01]
AND SO ONCE A PERSON EXAMINES AND COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT CENTER, THOSE TWO DATA POINTS AND THOSE TWO SCORES IS WEIGHTED, GO INTO CREATING IN, IN THE COMPETITIVE, BECAUSE IT'S A COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION, IT GOES INTO WAITING ONE THROUGH HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE, UM, PARTICIPATED AND PASSED THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON RANK ORDER.SO THOSE ARE THE FACTORS THAT ARE USED TO COMPILE THE, THE PROMOTIONAL LIST OR REGISTER.
SO THAT FINAL LIST IS STRICTLY BASED ON THE MERIT OF EACH MEMBER WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESS PROCESS.
IT'S BASED ON THE TEST SCORES OF THE COMBINED TEST SCORES OF BOTH THE WRITTEN EXAM AND THE ASSESSMENT CENTER AS WEIGHTED APPROPRIATELY.
DO YOU CONTACT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE LIST TO GET THEIR OPINIONS OR ANY SORT OF INPUT ON HOW THE LIST SHOULD BE ORDERED? NO.
MS. FETT, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAVIS OR ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES? NO, MR. CHAIR, UH, THE CITY REST AT THIS TIME.
AND MR. MCADEE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? YEAH, CAN WE STOP SHARE SHARING HER SCREEN? OKAY.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY WITNESSES OR ANYTHING, BUT DO YOU, DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST CLOSE AT THIS POINT, MAKE SURE IF, IF, BILL, YOU COULD DO A, A SHORT CLOSING THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO.
UM, MS. MCDADE, DO YOU WANNA GO FIRST? THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE ON YOU? SURE.
SO YOU KNOW, IT, THIS IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS THE CITY WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE.
YOU KNOW, THEY, THEIR, THEIR POSITION IS, UH, A LIST WAS PUBLISHED, A LIST WAS PUBLISHED WITH MR. CARTER'S NAME ON IT.
UH, AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH.
THE, THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS, UH, FROM THE BEGINNING IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT LIST? WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THAT LIST? THE LIST IS, YOU KNOW, THE CIVIL SERVICE CREATED THE RULES, UH, WHICH HAVE THE, THE FORCE OF LAW, AND IT, IT DEFINES THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE PROCESS.
UM, MS. BURSET REFERENCED, UH, A-D-F-R-M-O-P, SHE SAID, THAT DEFINES HOW WE MAKE OUR PROMOTIONS.
UM, WHAT DEFINES THE PROMOTIONS IS, IS CIVIL SERVICE.
WE, A LIST IS CREATED CIVIL SERVICES CHARGED WITH PUTTING A PROCESS TOGETHER, ADMINISTERING THE PROCESS, CREATING THAT LIST.
UM, IT'S TYPICALLY DONE BY EMPLOYEE NUMBER AT FIRST.
NAMES AREN'T EVEN APPLIED TO IT BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT, UH, THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF A MEMBER BASED ON A JOB ANALYSIS THAT'S PERFORMED EVERY FEW YEARS BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, THAT DEFINES THE, THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES THAT ARE NEEDED FOR EVERY POSITION WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UM, THE TEST IS GIVEN, UH, THE LIST IS PUBLISHED BASED ON THE SCORES.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY USE STA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TO CREATE THE LIST.
THE LIST IS CREATED, AND IT IS GIVEN TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AT THAT POINT TO MAKE THEIR PROMOTIONS OFF OF.
NEVER DO WE DEVIATE FROM THE LIST.
WHOEVER SCORES NUMBER ONE IS THE FIRST PERSON PROMOTED.
UH, AS IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE, UH, A SET NUMBER OF BUDGET AND APPROVED POSITIONS, I BELIEVE FOR LIEUTENANT, IT'S, IT'S, UH, 202 OR 204 BUDGET AND APPROVED.
SO AS SOMEBODY RETIRES, UM, FROM THE DEPARTMENT, THAT THAT, UH, POSITION BECOMES AVAILABLE.
AND IF WE HAVE AN ACTIVE LIST, WE PROMOTE THE NEXT PERSON TO THAT.
THAT'S HOW, IT'S, HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE.
THAT IS, IT'S DEFINED IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
SO THE INTENT OF THAT LIST IS NOT JUST TO CREATE A LIST OF NAMES TO GIVE TO THE FIRE CHIEF.
FOR THE FIRE CHIEF TO BE ABLE TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHOEVER HE WANTS OFF OF THAT LIST TO PROMOTE IT IS TO CREATE A LIST BASED OFF OF THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF EACH MEMBER BASED ON THE JOB.
UH, THE, THE JOB ANALYSIS THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT RATES THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES FOR THAT POSITION.
AND THAT IT IS, IT IS OBJECTIVE AND IT'S FAIR IN ITS APPLICATION.
AND IT'S ALWAYS, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE.
IT'S NEVER GIVEN TO A FIRE CHIEF TO, TO PICK AND CHOOSE.
I LIKE THAT GUY MORE THAN THAT GUY.
OR HE DID SOMETHING IN THE PAST, SO WE'RE GONNA PUNISH HIM ONCE AGAIN FOR SOMETHING THAT HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST.
UH, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PROCESS IS.
IT'S, AS I SAID, IT IS DEFINED TO BE OBJECTIVE AND FAIR IN ITS APPLICATION.
UM, AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT PARTICIPATES, EVERY MEMBER OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHO PARTICIPATES IN ANY PROMOTIONAL PROCESS, HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THE PROMOTION CAN BE EARNED IF THEY STUDY FOR THE TEST.
AND THE CITY MAINTAINS THE POLICY OF RANKING SCORES ON A VALIDATED TEST.
MR. CARTER STUDIED FOR THIS TEST.
HE WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE THE TEST.
[01:40:01]
HE WORKED HARD.HE DEMONSTRATED THAT HE HAD THE, THE MERIT AND FIT FITNESS TO BE PROMOTED TO THE RANK.
THE FIRE CHIEF MADE THE CHOICE TO SKIP HIM FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE AT TODAY.
UM, THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE LIST.
WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THE, UH, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE.
THE, THE, THE, THE RULE STATES, YES, THE RULE STATES THAT HE NEEDS TO BE ON THE LIST OR THAT HE'S ON THE LIST.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S, BUT WHAT DOES THAT LIST MEAN? THE LIST IS NOT JUST AN ARBITRARY LIST OF NAMES, IS A LIST BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS FOR THAT JOB.
UH, MR. CARTER DEMONSTRATED, UH, OVERWHELMINGLY THAT HE WAS QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB.
UH, THE DEPARTMENT CHOSE TO, TO SKIP HIM ON THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND ANYTHING ELSE IS, IS JUST A DISTRACTOR.
UM, IN, IN THIS ENTIRE CASE, IT IS ABOUT, UH, HE WAS ON THE LIST, A PROMO, UH, POSITION BECAME AVAILABLE.
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED AT THAT TIME, AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENTIRE, IF YOU READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, IT ALL THE PROMOTION STUFF, IT'S ALL DEFINED IN THERE.
SO 4.4 IS NOT JUST ABOUT DID HE APPEAR ON THE LIST? YES, HE APPEARED ON THE LIST, BUT, YOU KNOW, UH, IT, IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.
SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING, WE NEED TO REVERSE THIS WRONGDOING, UM, AWARD.
MR. MR. CARTER, THE PROMOTION, UH, THAT HE EARNED A YEAR AGO, UM, ALMOST A YEAR AGO, THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED A YEAR AGO.
UM, AND, AND, AND, UH, MAKE HIM FIRE LIEUTENANT AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A YEAR AGO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
UH, JUST BRIEFLY, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY IS MR. CARTER IS TRYING TO BOOTSTRAP UNAPPEALABLE RULES INTO THIS HEARING.
UH, THE SIMPLE POINT OF FACT, THE ONLY RULE BEFORE YOU IS CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.4 E, WHICH IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ON THE SPACE.
WE DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT INTENT.
UM, AS MR. MCDADE DOES POINT OUT THE RULES DO NOT OPERATE IN A VACUUM.
HOWEVER, WHAT'S NOTABLE IS IF WE LOOK AT, FOR INSTANCE, RULE 4.4 A IN CITY'S EXHIBIT G, THAT'S A CIVIL SERVICE RULE THAT ADDRESSES ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION.
AND IT STATES, QUOTE, PROMOTIONS TO ALL F FIVE POSITIONS.
AND THE FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM ELIGIBILITY LIST CREATED AS A RESULT OF PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED TO DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEE MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN THE SUBSECTION OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED.
THAT IS NOT A RULE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN HIS GRIEVANCE, NOR IS MOP THREE 20 FROM IN DFR MANUAL OF PROCEDURES, UM, THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE GRIEVANCE, BUT IS NOT GRIEVABLE.
AND THAT RULE, AS WE SEE IN MR. CARTER'S GRIEVANCE ON PAGE COD 0 2 5 STATES, UNLESS THE FIRE CHIEF UTILIZES ANOTHER METHOD DEEMED NECESSARY VACANCIES AT THE RANK OF DRIVER ENGINEER SLASH SENIOR FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER AND ABOVE THAT REMAIN UNFULFILLED AT THE CONCLUSION OF A BID PROCESS, WILL BE AWARDED BY UTILIZING THE PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST IN DESCENDING ORDER.
SO THERE ARE RULES THAT ADDRESS, UM, WHETHER YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROCEDURE FOR PROMOTING PEOPLE, THOSE ARE NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT MR. CARTER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE IN HIS, IN HIS GRIEVANCE.
HE CHOSE NOT TO, IN THE CASE OF 4.4 A.
UM, AND AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, MULTIPLE TIMES MLP THREE 20 IS NOT PROPERLY GRIEVEABLE, EXCUSE ME, RULE 4.4 E IS JUST WHAT IT SAYS ON ITS FACE.
WHEN YOU HAVE A CANDIDATE WHO MAKES A PASSING GRADE ON A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION, THEIR NAME MUST BE PLACED ON A LIST.
THE PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST, THAT PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST MUST REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS.
AND FOR THAT REASON, UM, WE CONTEND THAT MR. CARTER HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN AND WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU VOTE NAY ON YOUR STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER FROM EITHER PARTY? 'CAUSE UH, AT THIS POINT I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP FOR DELIBERATION BY THE BOARD, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE, IS THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING WE'RE MISSING HERE? ANYTHING ADDITIONAL? WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE ARGUMENT, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S ANYTHING FURTHER SHE KEEPS BRINGING UP THAT WE DIDN'T BRING UP THE MOOPS AND GRIEVE THOSE.
WE, WE, WE'VE BROUGHT THOSE UP IN THE PAST.
THIS, THIS HEARING WAS STRICTLY ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF RULE 4.4.
I IT'S NOT ABOUT, OKAY, IF WE WANT TO HAVE A SUBSEQUENT HEARING ABOUT, ABOUT THE MOOPS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT.
[01:45:01]
UP.SO WE DIDN'T FAIL TO BRING IT UP.
WE JUST, WE DIDN'T BRING IT UP.
'CAUSE THIS IS ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION IN THE APPLICATION OF A CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
NOT DF ROPS, NOT C CITY, CITY PERSONNEL RULES.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PARDON? MS. PER, OH, I'M SORRY.
I WAS JUST SAYING NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE BOARD IS GONNA DELIBERATE AND, UM, WE HAVE THE, MR. CARTER, YOU HAVE THE, YOU, YOU AND MR. J HAVE THE CHOICE OF WHETHER TO DO THIS AN OPEN SESSION OR CLOSED SESSION.
WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE? OPEN IS FINE.
WELL, WE THEN WE'LL DELIBERATE IN, IN OPEN SESSION.
BOARD, THIS IS OUR, OUR DETERMINATION.
I THINK YOU HAVE A STATEMENT OF QUESTION BEFORE YOU, UM, AND THE, THE, THE, THE, UH, QUESTION IS JUST FOR THE RECORD.
IT SAYS, UNDER THE CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE CITY OF, CITY OF DALLAS CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RULE FOUR, SWORN SERVICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION SECTION 4.4, SWORN SERVICE, CERTIFIC CER, UH, CERTIFICATIONS AND PROMOTION IN THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, SUBSECTION E STATES THAT, I'M SORRY, THAT TOOK A LONG WHILE TO GET THERE.
THAT ON ANY DEPARTMENTAL DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION, THE NAMES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS MAKING PASSING GRADES, INCLUDING ASSESSMENT EXERCISE, WERE APPLICABLE, SHALL BE PLACED ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST.
ANY PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY LIST SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE LIST IS CERTIFIED.
THE QUESTION FOR US TO ANSWER EITHER, EITHER YES OR NO, IS DID MR. WILLIAM JORDAN CARTER OF THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT VIOLATED THE ABOVE STATE OF RURAL WHEN IT DID NOT PROMOTE HIM FROM THE ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT EXPIRED ON JUNE 20TH, 2024.
AND THE PARTIES HAVE SEEN THIS QUESTION.
AND SO, UH, THIS IS THE QUESTION WE'RE ANSWERING.
I AM GOING BRIEFLY START OFF IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UM, I, I BELIEVE MR. MCDADE, YOU SUMMED IT UP ADEQUATELY WHEN YOU MADE THE COMMENT IN YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT, IS THE DEPARTMENT CHOSE TO SKIP, SKIP HIM TO SKIP MR. CARTER.
UM, AND I THINK THAT IS A MATERIALLY DIFFERENT QUESTION WHY THAT OCCURRED THAN WAS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
UH, THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE IN QUESTION SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR CUT TO ME, UH, ON ANY DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION, THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUAL PASSING, UH, TO BE PLACED ON AN ELIGIBILITY ELIGIBILITY LIST, DID THAT OCCUR? YES, MR. MCC, MR. CARTER'S NAME WAS PLACED ON AN ELIG ELIGIBILITY LIST, AND THAT LIST WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS.
THAT ELIGIBILITY, THAT'S REMAINED IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS TO ARGUE THAT THAT WHY THE DEPARTMENT DID WHAT IT DID, WHY THE DFR DID WHAT IT DID TO ME, DOES NOT IMPLICATE, DID, DID CIVIL SERVICE PUT THIS ON A LIST, PUT THIS NAME ON A LIST.
THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY PUT IT IN, IN, IN THE ORDER BASED ON THE SCORING.
AND THAT LIST REMAINED IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS.
SO TO ME, I FIND, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SAY, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, UH, THE, WHEN IT SAYS, DID THE, DID THE, DID WE, WAS THAT RULE WAS 4.04 E WAS THAT VIOLATED? AND THE ANSWER IS TO ME, NO.
THE ANSWER IS NO TO THAT, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LIST THERE.
THEY WERE, IT WAS SCORED, A SCORED LIST.
IT WAS PUT, IT WAS, IT WAS PRESENTED, AND IT WAS IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS.
CIVIL SERVICE DID EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IN THAT CASE.
AND YOU MAY HAVE AN ARGUMENT AT A DIFFERENT, IN, IN A DIFFERENT VENUE OR A DIFFERENT, UH, OR ON A DIFFERENT MATTER.
BUT I ASKED YOU, THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE ITSELF PRESENTED TO US 4.4 E I'M VOTING NO, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT, THAT, THAT RULE WAS NOT VIOLATED.
THE CIVIL SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE DID EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, SUPPOSED TO DO.
NOW I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS FOR ANY DISCUSSION THEY MAY HAVE.
I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO DISCUSS.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR CHAIRMAN ALSO, I DO AGREE WITH THE CHAIR.
UH, WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO US TODAY WAS REGARDING THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
AND THEY DID FOLLOW WHAT WAS TO BE DONE.
UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE, UH, DEPARTMENT WOULD PICK AND CHOOSE BECAUSE THAT IS VIOLATIONS, UH, OF DISCRIMINATION, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WOULD'VE DONE.
SO I DO AGREE WITH, WITH THE CHAIR, MS.
[01:50:01]
GERBER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I DON'T.WILL DO I HAVE A MOTION THEN FOR THE BOARD? WE CAN VOTE THIS WAY IF IT'S, IF IT'S A UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT WE ALL VOTE NAY ON THE QUESTION AS PRESENTED THE STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION THAT'S PRESENTED TO THE BOARD.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR THAT? WOULD YOU GO, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE MOTION? YEAH, I MEAN, YOU MEAN READ THE QUESTION? UH, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
LET, LET ME GET A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FIRST.
SO, CHRIS, YOU VOTED TO, WE VOTE ON THE QUESTION.
AND BRIDGET, DID YOU VOTE? DID YOU SECOND THAT? DID I, DID I MISUNDERSTAND AND MISHEAR YOU? YOU'RE, YOU'RE, THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, MS. RIVER, THE QUESTION IS, DID MR. WILLIAM JORDAN CARTER OF THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT ESTABLISH BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DALLAS FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT VIOLATED THE ABOVE STATED RULE WHEN IT DID NOT PROMO PROMOTE HIM FROM THE ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT EXPIRED ON JUNE 20TH, 2024? THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
SO THIS IS WHERE THE CONFUSION COMES IN.
BUT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE.
SO THERE'S, LET ME READ THE QUESTION AGAIN TO YOU.
DID, UH, DID MR. CARTER ESTABLISH, I'LL, I'LL SUMMARIZE IT QUICK.
DID MR. CARTER ESTABLISH BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DFR VIOLATED THE ABOVE STATED RULE WHEN IT DID NOT PROMOTE HIM FOR THE ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT EXPIRED ON JUNE 20TH OF 24? OKAY, MS. GERBER? OH, I'M DONE.
DID YOU VOTE? I HAVEN'T VOTED YET.
YOU HAVEN'T ASKED, SO I WASN'T, I KNOW I ASKED FOR THE VOTING.
THREE, THREE OF US WERE VOTING NAY.
THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS NO.
AND I, I WANNA CLARIFY, ARE YOU VOTING THAT THEY DID, DID PROVE IT BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, OR THEY DID NOT PROVE IT BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE? I THINK THEY DID PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
YEAH, SO WE HAVE THREE VOTING, VOTING NAY AND ONE VOTING.
SO THE MOTION CARRIES, AND I'LL PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK AND, AND, AND PRESENT THAT TO THE BOARD SECRETARY, MR. MCDADE.
MR. CARTER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND MR. ETTE, THANK YOU AS WELL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE REMAINDER OF OUR AGENDA TODAY.
LET ME, LET ME FIND MY AGENDA REAL QUICK HERE IN A STACK OF PAPER.
THIS TAKES US TO, UH, ITEM FIVE BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE IS CIVIL SERVICE RULES REVISION UPDATE.
MR. CHAIR, I GO THIS AFTERNOON IN JUST A COUPLE MINUTES TO PUBLIC SAFETY TO, UM, RE BRIEF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON THE RULE TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL PATHWAY AND TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
YOU HAVE BEEN KEEPING YOU ALL UPDATED ON THAT.
HOPEFULLY, UM, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY BRIEF THAT COMMITTEE AND QUICKLY GET ON A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TO GET THOSE CHANGES MADE.
YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY BEEN BRIEFED AND RE BRIEFED AND YOU HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THOSE ITEMS. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING YOU AN UPDATE ON THAT.
SO THAT'S AT ONE O'CLOCK TODAY.
SO HOPEFULLY WHEN WE GET TOGETHER IN AUGUST, I WILL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU OF A
[01:55:01]
COUNCIL DATE OR THAT IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT, THAT WILL GET US DOWN THE ROAD TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT DPD AS WE LEAD OUT IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR IN TERMS OF RECRUITMENT.AND SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S TO COME.
UM, WE ARE ROUNDING THE CORNER.
UH, MR. CHAIR, I'M, I'M MOVING BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ALL, ALL OF YOU ALL HERE WOULD APPRECIATE OUR, OUR BREVITY.
SO I'M MOVING NOW INTO, UM, DEPARTMENT UPDATES.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE A TON AT DEPARTMENT UPDATES FOR YOU.
I DON'T EVEN HAVE OUR PREPARED, UM, PIECE TODAY.
WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT THE TEAM HAS BEEN VERY, VERY, UM, ENGAGED WITH TESTING AND PROMOTION AS YOU'VE HEARD TODAY, UM, FROM BOTH PUBLIC SPEAKERS AND HEARING ITEMS. AND SO WE'RE VERY INUNDATED RIGHT NOW IN TRYING TO SUPPORT OUR, OUR, OUR SWORN MEMBERS IN THAT REGARD.
AND I, I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE, A TESTED POSITION UPDATE WHEN WE GET BACK TOGETHER AGAIN.
I INADVERTENTLY YOU HAVE YOUR SCORECARD, UM, IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL.
UM, INADVERTENTLY, UM, INCLUDED SOME PRELIMINARY DATA THAT I'M PULLING DOWN IN ANTICIPATION TO TALK WITH YOU ALL ABOUT TESTING PHYSICIAN NEXT MONTH.
SO I ACCIDENTALLY SENT IT, AND SO IT'S IN YOUR BOARD PACKET.
SO PLEASE DISREGARD THOSE LAST TWO BACK PAGES THAT, THAT'S INTERNAL DATA THAT I'VE REQUESTED AND WAS WORKING ON AND, AND ACCIDENTALLY INCLUDED IT.
SO I HOPE TO BE BACK TO YOU ALL WITH THAT DATA.
UM, IT'S JUST PRELIMINARY DATA THAT WE'VE PULLED DOWN.
I KNOW YOU HAVE IT 'CAUSE IT'S IN MIND.
UM, WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TOGETHER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF JULY.
THOSE ARE OUR DEPARTMENT UPDATES, UM, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, MR. CHAIR.
UM, AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS FROM, FROM, FROM YOU ALL.
WELL, WE APPRECIATE THE THREE MINUTE SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JARED? WELL, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY.
I, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSEVERANCE THROUGH THE, THE PERSEVERANCE.
TODAY IS A LONGER DAY, SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
AND OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE THE FIRST TUESDAY IN AUGUST.
SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF DALLAS TAKES JULY OFF.
SO OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE 110 DEGREES
SO, AND I ANTICIPATE THE RANGES WILL BE SOLIDLY OUT OF FIRST PLACE BY THAT TIME AS WELL.
SO I HOPE I'M WRONG ON THAT ONE WRAP BEFORE WE CLOSE UP ANYWAY.
BUT THANK YOU WRAP Y'ALL VERY MUCH AND THE TIME.
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
I JUST WANNA SAY WELCOME, WELCOME TO THE TEAM.
I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE, UH, EMMANUEL CASTELLANO, UM, NEW EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT AND BOARD COORDINATOR, UH, HERE IN THE DEPARTMENT.
WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO, UM, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONVINCE HIM TO COME JOIN US.
HE JOINED US MOST RECENTLY FROM THE OFFICE OF, UM, CULTURAL AFFAIRS.
UH, AND SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE HIS TON OF EXPERIENCE, UM, WITH BOARD AND COMMISSIONS.
AND SO AS YOU KNOW, WITH OUR TRIAL BOARD HEARINGS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE GOING ON, THAT'S A GREAT ADDITION TO OUR TEAM.
SO WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE HIM.
UM, AND WE REALLY CELEBRATE ANNA MAN'S OWN AND HER AND HER WORK AND WISH HER HAPPY RETIREMENT.
UH, AND, UM, LOOKING FORWARD TO, TO WORKING WITH EMMANUEL AS WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO BUILD ON, ON WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, MS. GERBER.
AND YOU COULDN'T SEE EMMANUEL, BUT HE WAS WAVING TO TO Y'ALL AND SAID THANK YOU.
SO, BUT ANYWAY, THE TIME IS NOW, UH, 1138 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.
I WISH Y'ALL A HAPPY SUMMER AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY AND WE WILL RECONVENE IN AUGUST.