* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] OKAY. AND I THINK MR. [Civil Service on September 9, 2025. ] AL MAY BE JOINING US AT SOME POINT IN TIME AS WELL TOO, SO WE CAN HAVE ALL FIVE OF US HERE. WE, WE, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY OBJECTION, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS 9:48 AM AND TODAY IS, UH, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025. WE HAVE A COUPLE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA. LET ME START OFF FIRST WITH THE, UM, UH, SEE IF WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS THERE, EMMANUEL? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. OKAY. THAT TAKES US TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AND THAT THIS IS THE APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 3RD, 2025 CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING MINUTES. EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. I'M READING. THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE MINUTES. I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. I NEED YOU THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. SO MOVED I APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 12TH, 2025 SPECIAL CALL, CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING. ARE THERE ANY REVISIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY, ANY HEARING? NONE IF WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. OKAY. WHO THE MOTION WAS MADE BY WHOM? BY ME. BRIDGET M. SECOND BY CURTIS. BRIDGET, CORRECT. SECOND BY BRIDGET. OH. OH, OKAY. OKAY. SO, UH, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. THAT TAKES US TO OUR SECOND ITEM OF THE DAY, AND THAT IS TO HEAR THE REHIRE ELIGIBILITY APPEAL OF MR. TIMOTHY PARIS, A FORMER EMPLOYEE IN THE DALLAS FIRE DEPARTMENT. MR. PARIS. I, THE, THERE, THERE YOU ARE. I SEE YOU ONLINE NOW. THANK YOU. MR. PARIS? YES, SIR. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WANNA CHECK WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS. DID YOU ALL RECEIVE BACKUP PAPERWORK ON, ON THIS? NO, I GOT THE ZIP. OKAY. I, I DID NOT EITHER. AND, UM, UH, BUT I DID GET A COPY OF IT THIS MORNING. IT WAS GIVEN TO ME. THERE IS BACKUP PAPERWORK. AND, UM, LET ME TELL YOU A, A, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE. I WAS SOMEWHAT INCLINED TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL WE GOT A COPY OF THE PAPERWORK, BUT FOUND OUT THAT IT JUST FOR SOME REASON WASN'T INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTATION WE GOT. UM, UH, MR. PARIS WAS, UH, UH, APPOINTED, UH, DALLAS FIRE AND RESCUE ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2017. HE WAS A TRAINEE, HE WAS A FIRE, FIRE AND RESCUE OFFICER, AND HE WAS DISCHARGED ON 12, ON DECEMBER 6TH, 2022, WHERE HE FAILED FAILURE OF TO BE FIELD TRAINING. UM, THE DOCUMENTATION THAT, THAT, THAT HE PROVIDED, AND LEMME JUST SAY THAT HE, HE DID PROVIDE A DOCUMENTATION. IT WASN'T, IT WASN'T SOMETHING, UM, HE DID NOT DO. SO WE DO HAVE HIS DOCUMENTATION. HE PROVIDED A SHORT, UH, LETTER AND, AND TO THE BOARD. AND, AND IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL READ THAT TO YOU SO YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT HE STATED. UH, MY NAME IS TIMOTHY PARIS. I'M WRITING TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CONSIDERATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OR REHIRE AS A DALLAS FIRE OFFICER, I SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED PARAMEDIC SCHOOL IN 2022. HOWEVER, I WAS ULTIMATELY TERMINATED IN DECEMBER OF 2022 AFTER MULTIPLE UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS AT PASSING THE NATIONAL PARAMEDIC REGISTRY EXAM. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BY DISMISSAL WAS NOT RELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE FOR ANY DISCIPLINARY ISSUES. THIS WAS AFFIRMED BY THEN FIRE CHIEF ARTIST WHO PROVIDED ME WITH A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR REINSTATEMENT CONTINGENT UPON PASSING THE REGISTRY 17 DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THAT LAB, OF THAT LETTER, I PASSED THE NATIONAL REGISTRY EXAM AND RECEIVED MY EMTP CERTIFICATION. WHY ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DELAY? I WANT TO SHARE THE CONTEXT. AT THE TIME, I WAS A SINGLE FATHER WORKING TWO JOBS TO PROVIDE FOR MY SON. DESPITE THESE CHALLENGES, I REMAINED COMMITTED TO THE PRO PROFESSION, BECOMING A FULL-TIME STUDENT, ALL WHILE KEEPING MY SKILLS MAINTAINED TO STAY ENGAGED AND MAINTAIN MY SKILLS. I HAVE BEEN WORKING AS AN EMTB FOR PRIORITY CARE TRANSIT, EMS, AND AM CURRENTLY EMPLOYED AT DALLAS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER IN MESQUITE. AS A PARAMEDIC TECH EMERGENCY ROOM, I'M CONFIDENT IN MY ABILITY TO RETURN TO DUTY AS BOTH A FIREFIGHTER AND A PARAMEDIC, AND CONTRIBUTE MEANINGFULLY THROUGH THE DALLAS FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY WE SERVE. I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS CAREER AND FULLY PREPARED TO RESUME MY DUTIES WITH PROFESSIONALISM, DEDICATION, AND PRIDE. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT. [00:05:01] UH, I'LL ALSO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE IS A DOCUMENT, UH, UH, FROM PRIORITY CARE TRANSIT, AND IT SAYS, TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THIS LETTER IS TO CONFIRM THAT TIMOTHY PARIS WAS EMPLOYED WITH OUR COMPANY AS AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN FROM APRIL 3RD, 2023 THROUGH FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025. UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU SINCE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. UM, UH, AND MR. MR PER, UH, THERE YOU ARE, UM, ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO TALK TO US ABOUT WHY YOU WANT TO COME BACK, UH, TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. UM, I, I WOULD NOTE THAT, UM, UH, SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE IS THAT TO, TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE HAS PERFORMED EFFECTIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY IN A STABLE WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT. AND TO ESTABLISH THAT, ESTABLISH THAT THE RULES PROVIDE THE FORMER EMPLOYEE MUST, AND A MINIMUM SHOW THAT HE OR SHE HAS HAD NO MORE THAN TWO EMPLOYERS IN THE TWO YEARS PRIOR TO SEEKING PERMISSION TO REAPPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY. AND THAT WE WILL, WE, THE BOARD, WILL REVIEW AND CONSIDER YOUR ENTIRE WORK HISTORY FROM THE DATE OF DISCHARGE OR RESIGNATION TO THE PRESENT IN DETERMINING THIS ELEMENT. AND, UM, SO I WANTED TO START OFF WITH YOU FIRST, MR. PARIS, AND GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO US. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ONE THING, AND THAT IS YOU DO SHOW, UM, WORKING WITH PRIORITY PRIORITY CARE TRANSIT FROM APRIL 3RD OF 23 THROUGH FEBRUARY 4TH OF 25. UH, SO NOT QUITE A TWO YEAR PERIOD. I WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU COULD TELL US, UH, WHAT YOU'VE DONE ALSO, BESIDES THAT, WHETHER IT BEFORE YOU STARTED WITH PRIORITY CARE OR, OR WHAT YOU'VE DONE AFTER FEBRUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR, UH, AFTER PRIORITY CARE. AND THIS IS YOUR TIME TO TALK TO THE BOARD AND TELL US WHY, WHY YOU SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE FOR MR. PARIS. I'M GONNA TURN THIS OVER TO YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AFTER YOU CONCLUDE, UH, THE BOARD MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SO PLEASE, PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING. OH, THANK YOU AS WELL. UH, GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE. UH, I'M JUST HERE TO PRETTY MUCH STATE MY CASE. UH, UH, LONG STORY SHORT, UH, BEFORE I WAS WITH PRIORITY, I WAS TRYING TO, UH, BASICALLY GET BACK IN PARAMEDIC SCHOOL ONCE I WAS TERMINATED. UM, IT, THE FIRST, SO I WAS TERMINATED IN DECEMBER, 2022. WHENEVER 23 AND THREE, UH, CAME, I WAS GETTING READY TO TRY TO GO TO THE CLASS. SO I WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE EMS SUPERVISOR AND HE WAS KIND OF LIKE LETTING ME KNOW TO JUST KIND OF WAIT FOR A COUPLE WEEKS AND THEN HE'S GONNA TRY TO, UH, PUT, HELP ME GET BACK TO THE CLASS. SO ONCE I GOT, UH, WAITED FOR A LITTLE WHILE, UH, HE INFORMED ME THAT, UH, THERE WAS NO MORE ROOM IN THE CLASS TO CONTINUE WITH THE PARAMEDIC SCHOOL. SO I PRETTY MUCH JUST, JUST WAITED AND TRIED TO WAIT IT OUT. AND THEN I ENDED UP JUST, UH, WORKING LIKE A, A JOB THAT PAID, LIKE CASH, JUST TRYING TO KIND OF JUST WAIT UNTIL I WAS APPROVED IN ONE OF THE CLASSES WAS GOING TO START THE, UH, SCHOOL THAT I WAS GOING THROUGH, WHICH IS BROOKHAVEN, THE SCHOOL, I DID GET MY EMT AND EMTP WITH, UH, THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SILVER, UH, A CIVILIAN CLASS THAT WAS OPEN. SO IN THAT, IN THAT TIME, I WAS JUST PRETTY MUCH WAITING TO SEE IF I COULD, UH, GET BACK IN SCHOOL. THAT WAY I CAN PRETTY MUCH START PARAMEDIC SCHOOL OVER WITH. UM, ONCE I STARTED WITH PRIORITY CARE, I WORKED THAT JOB BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I WAS, UH, HAD JUST HAD A CHILD. SO I WORKED THAT JOB TO KIND OF CATCH BACK UP ON, ON THINGS THAT I HAD TO TAKE CARE OF AND JUST LIFE IN GENERAL. AND THEN, UH, I PRETTY MUCH GOT, ONCE I, UH, STARTED WITH SCHOOL, I WAS WORKING THAT JOB, UH, WITH PRIORITY CARE, AND THEN I STARTED GOING TO SCHOOL FULL-TIME. SO IN THE MIX OF GOING TO SCHOOL FULL-TIME AND BEING A FATHER, I JUST PRETTY MUCH JUST KIND OF WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH PRIORITY CARE AND SCHOOL. AND THEN, UH, ONCE I COMPLETED EVERYTHING AND PRETTY MUCH, UH, WENT THROUGH CLINICALS AND ALL THE STUFF THAT'S REQUIRED TO GET THE THROUGH SCHOOL, WHICH TOOK, WHICH TOOK A YEAR, UH, I WENT BACK AND TOOK MY EXAM AND PASSED IT. AND THEN I GOT ON, UH, BECAUSE THEY PRIOR CARE DIDN'T WANNA PAY, UH, WHAT I WAS PRETTY MUCH MY CERTIFICATION PAY. SO I GOT ON WITH THE, UH, EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT IN MESQUITE BECAUSE THEY, THEY DIDN'T PAY PARAMEDICS. UH, WELL, SO AGAIN, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO, UH, KEEP IN CONTACT WITH, UH, THE DEPARTMENT AND JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, FURTHERMORE, LET [00:10:01] THEM KNOW THAT I AM IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GIVE SOME GOOD STANDARDS. UH, THE REASON WHY I WANT TO GET BACK WITH DALLAS IS BECAUSE THIS IS THE CITY I GREW UP WITH IN I BORN, I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. UH, I LOVE REACHING OUT TO MY COMMUNITY AND DOING THINGS FOR OTHERS. UH, I'M, I'M A PRETTY MUCH A, A GUY THAT'S, THAT'S LOVED THE COMMUNITY AND GREW UP IN THE COMMUNITY PLAYING SPORTS AND STUFF. SO I JUST PRETTY MUCH AM, UH, I'M A CAREGIVING TYPE PERSON. SO, UH, I, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T WANNA WORK FOR NO OTHER CITY, BUT DALLAS. AND THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED TO REACH OUT TO OTHER CITIES TO TRY TO GET THERE BECAUSE MY, MY DEDICATION IS HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. SO, UH, I JUST WANTED TO PRETTY MUCH LET, UH, EVERYBODY KNOW THAT, UH, I AM READY AND I HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BEEN EXERCISING MY CERTIFICATION BY BEING IN THE ER, UH, DAILY AND WORKING FULL TIME NOW. AND MR. HARRIS, I, I, I MISSPOKE. I FOUND ANOTHER DOCUMENT HERE FROM DALLAS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE CURRENTLY WORKING, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND THAT SHOWS THE DATA HIRE FROM A, FROM YOUR HR BENEFITS COORDINATOR, DATE OF HIRE OF APRIL 21ST OF 25. SO, SO YOU DO HAVE THE TWO JOBS IN THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD. I, I WANT TO CORRECT THAT. SO, OKAY. SO YOU DO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. SO BOARD, UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ANY OF YOU MAY HAVE? MR. PARIS? I JUST WANNA VERIFY OR CONFIRM THAT, UM, YOU'VE HAD TWO YEARS, FULL TWO YEARS. 'CAUSE COINCIDENTALLY, ANOTHER CASE THAT WE WE'RE WORKING ON IS WHETHER SOMETHING HAPPENED WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD. SO YOU'VE DONE THE MINIMUM TWO YEARS? YES, MA'AM. OH, UH, WELL, I PASSED AT THE TWO YEAR OR SO. I'M KIND OF, I'M KIND OF CONFUSED ON WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. ARE YOU SAYING I DID THE MINIMUM TWO YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT? NO, TWO YEARS FOLLOWING. IT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK SOMEWHERE OR SEVERAL PLACES FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST TWO YEARS. AND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DATES ON YOUR EMPLOYMENT, UH, MR. CHAIR SAID THAT YOU WERE THERE LESS THAN TWO YEARS, BUT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT GETTING TRAINING AND THAT YOU, LEMME CLARIFY. I CAN'T, NO. OKAY. SORRY. LEMME CLARIFY IF I CAN. PRIORITY CARE. HE WAS THERE FROM APRIL 3RD, 2023 THROUGH FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025. OKAY. SO IT'S BEYOND APRIL 25. HE WAS HIRED BY DALLAS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AND IS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED THERE. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. PARIS? YES, SIR. OKAY. YEAH, SO, GREAT. THANK YOU. YES. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS? NO. MR. PARIS? I JUST, UH, YEAH, CHAIRMAN, WE, I DO HAVE A COMMENT. UH, I COMMEND YOU YOUR, YOUR DEDICATION AND YOUR DETERMINATION, MR. PARIS. THANK YOU, SIR. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE. I SO MOVE TO REINSTATE, UH, OR TO HAVE MR. PARIS, UH, REINSTATED TO APPLY FOR REEMPLOYMENT? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR HAND? AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIM FOUR TO NOTHING. MR. PARIS, PLEASE CONGRATULATIONS. AND IF YOU'LL BE IN CONTACT WITH CIVIL SERVICE, THEY'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS TO BE TAKEN. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. WE WISH YOU ALL THE BEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, MOVING ALONG. UH, THE NEXT THING WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA IS A HEARING ITEM FOUR B, CONDUCT A GRIEVANCE OF FIELD HEARING OF CECIL CHAMBERS, FOR INSTANCE, DIGON AND RICKY SCOTT, IN WHICH THEY CLAIM THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATED CODE OF RULE, THE REGULATIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RULE 4.3 SWORN SERVICE CERTIFICATIONS AND PROMOTIONS IN THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT. SUBSECTION B PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION. UM, AND AS I UNDERSTAND, MR. MARTIN WAS REPRESENTING THE CITY AND MR. SCHNEIDER'S REPRESENTING THE GRIEVANCE IN THIS CASE. AND, UH, I BELIEVE MR. SNYDER, ARE YOU PREPARED TO GO FORWARD OR MR. MR. MARTIN WHO, WHO'S GONNA GO FIRST? UH, THIS IS, THIS IS, UH, GREG MARTIN. I'M PREPARED TO, TO GO FORWARD, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING AND THOSE MR. SNYDER DISAGREES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, [00:15:01] UH, MR. SNYDER WOULD GO FIRST AS A, HE HAS THE, UH, THE BURDEN. THE BURDEN. OKAY. MR. SNYDER, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TO, YOU'D BE THE FIRST HE WOULD REPRESENT THE GRIEVANCE ON IN THE APPEAL. SO ARE YOU PREPARED TO GO FORWARD? YES, SIR. OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER BEFOREHAND? YES. MR. CHAIR BEFOREHAND, MI MR. CHAIR, UH, I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE OUR COURT REPORTER, LESLIE WILKINS, UM, WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A RECORD OF THIS GRIEVANCE PROCEEDING OKAY. THIS MORNING. AND SO I'M NOT SURE IF, UM, IF, UM, WE NEED TO BE SWORN IN OR, OR HOW WE WANTED TO HANDLE THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU IF SHE WENT DIRECTLY ON YOUR SCREEN. OH, THERE I SEE. LESLIE. GOOD MORNING, LESLIE. GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. UH, LESLIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN ANY OF THE, ANY OF THE, UH, OF THE PEOPLE WHO BE SPEAKING, UH, TESTIFYING TODAY? I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE FOUR, CORRECT? UH, SO, UH, WOULD YOU, WOULD, UH, MR. MARTIN AND MR. SNYDER, WOULD YOU PREFER WE DO THAT ONE BY ONE SINCE WE HAVE EVERYBODY NOT IN, IN ONE PLACE, OR WOULD YOU PREFER WE DO 'EM ALL AT ONE TIME? WHATEVER YOU WISH. I THINK WE CAN JUST DO 'EM ONE AT A TIME, ONE AT A TIME AS THEY TEST, GET READY TO TESTIFY. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT THEN. AND THANK YOU MR. AND MR. DAVIS FOR THAT INFORMATION. UH, MR. SNYDER, YOU'RE UP. UH, SO MR. WELCH, I SUBMITTED, UH, WE BOTH, UH, MR. MARTIN AND I HAVE SUBMITTED POSITION STATEMENTS AND WE'VE ALSO SUBMITTED EXHIBIT LISTS ALONG WITH EXHIBITS. UM, I'D LIKE TO OFFER MY EXHIBITS KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO THE TRIAL BOARD OR NOT. MR. MARTIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? UH, I, I WOULD PREFER, UH, TO, TO, TO, TO TAKE A ONE AT A TIME AS WELL, UH, JUST BECAUSE SOME OF THE EXHIBITS, FRANKLY, I, I HAVE LOOKED AT AND, AND I DON'T DOUBT THEIR, UH, VERACITY, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE THE RELEVANCE. SO, UH, IF, IF, IF, MAYBE WE COULD, UH, CERTAINLY THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP IN THE EXHIBITS BETWEEN WHAT THE CITY HAS SUBMITTED, WHAT MR. SNYDER'S HAS SUBMITTED. SO I CERTAINLY, OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THOSE, BUT SOME OF THE ONES THAT HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT, UH, I I MIGHT OBJECT ON, ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANCE. OKAY. SO YOU'RE, WE'RE GONNA ASK MR. DER TO ADMIT YOU'RE REQUEST THAT HE, HE INTRODUCED EACH EXHIBIT SPECIFICALLY AT THE CONFLICT DURING THE HEARING AND ASK FOR, ITS, ITS, ITS APPROVAL AND THAT'D BE ADMITTED TO EVIDENCE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY, EVEN IF IT'S NOT RELEVANT? WELL, OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I, UNDER, I UNDERSTAND MR. WELCH AND I PROMISE I'M NOT GONNA BE A, A, A STICKLER ON IT, BUT JUST SOME OF 'EM, I JUST DON'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, I, I I DON'T SEE WHY THEY, WHY THEY NEED TO BE INTERVIEW. OKAY. MR. SNYDER, WHEN YOU COME UPON AN EXHIBIT THAT YOU WANTED TO INTRODUCE, JUST SIMPLY LET US KNOW AND, AND, UH, UH, IF, IF MR. MARTIN HAS ANY OBJECTION TO IT, WE'LL HEAR AT THAT TIME. OTHERWISE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT IT. UH, LET ME ASK, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS EXHIBITS AS WELL. UM, UH, MR. ROGER, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO MISS ADMISSION OF THOSE EXHIBITS? OH, I DON'T. OKAY. WELL, THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THEN THE CITY OF DALLAS'S EXHIBITS WILL BE ADMITTED. OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER BEFORE WE GET STARTED? WELL, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND MR. WELCH, UH, DO, DO, DO THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE THE EXHIBITS OR? YES. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE THEM, YOU HAVE THE POSITION STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS. OKAY. RIGHT. WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE EVERYTHING THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED. YES, SIR. YES. OKAY. VERY WELL. UM, WHAT DO YOU PREFER FOR OPENING STATEMENTS? OR YOU WANT ME TO CALL WITNESSES? ARE WE PROCEEDING? IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, IF THE PARTIES LIKE TO HAVE OPENING STATEMENTS, I'D BE GLAD TO, TO ALLOW THE PARTIES TO, TO SPEAK FOR FIVE MINUTES EACH. IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND, AND, AND WE HAVE ALL READ THE MATERIALS, I THINK WE KNOW PRETTY WELL WHAT THE, THE ISSUES ARE, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE FIVE MINUTES EACH FOR OPENING STATEMENT, THAT CERTAINLY WILL BE PERMISSIBLE. OKAY. MR. SCHNEIDER, JUST FROM THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW, IF, IF THEY'VE READ THE MATERIALS, I, I'M FINE TO JUST START WITH THE WITNESSES. OF COURSE, IF YOU WANTED TO DO OPENING STATEMENTS, IT'S FINE. OKAY. UH, SHALL I, GO AHEAD, SIR. [00:20:02] MR. WELCH. PARDON? I'M SORRY. UH, SHOULD I GO AHEAD? YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU FEEL FREE TO GO AHEAD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I CAN'T SEE YOU, SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW IT. I, I THINK YOU'RE OKAY THAT I EXPLAIN THAT EXPLAINS IT NOW. OKAY. I CAN'T TELL IF YOU'RE MAKING NOTE OR LOOKING AT ME WAITING FOR ME TO SAY SOMETHING. ALL RIGHT. UH, OKAY. SO I'LL GO AHEAD, I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW YOUR TIME IS IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. UH, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO MY CLIENTS. MY CLIENTS ARE THREE TENURED DALLAS POLICE SERGEANTS. UM, THEY ALL THREE TO PROMOTE TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT. AND IN THAT, UH, TOWARDS THAT GOAL, THEY ENTERED A PROMOTIONAL EXAM PROCESS, UH, THAT IS DESIGNED TO DETERMINE THEIR MERIT AND FITNESS, UH, FOR THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT. ALL THREE OF THESE, UH, SERGEANTS COMPLETED THE PROCESS SUCCESSFULLY, UM, AND SHOWED THEIR MERIT AND FITNESS, AND THEY APPEARED ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR PROMOTIONS ON APRIL THE 12TH OF, UH, 2024. UM, IT, THIS IS AN ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT WAS GENERATED BY CIVIL, THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT. UH, YOU'LL SEE THE DEFINITION OF AN ELIGIBILITY LIST, UH, THAT IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, UH, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE DEFINITION. IT SAYS IT'S A LIST OF APPLICANTS, UH, OR POSITIONS THAT HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST. THERE IS NO OTHER DEFINITION IN THE RULES THAT THAT DELINEATE OTHER TYPES OF LISTS. THERE'S NO UPDATED LISTS, THERE'S NO SUPPLEMENTAL LISTS, THERE'S NOTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S SIMPLY AN ELEVATED LIST THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO THAT WAS PUT OUT THE 12TH, 2024. AND ACCORDING TO THE RULES, UH, IT WAS LISTED AS, UH, GOOD UP UNTIL OCTOBER THE 12TH, 2025, WHICH WOULD BE 18 MONTHS. UH, I THINK IT'S 500 TO 48 DAYS. THAT'S COMING FROM, UH, THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE THAT REQUIRES TO BE ACTIVE FOR THAT AMOUNT AT A MINIMUM. SO THAT'S WHAT HAP THAT THAT GOES ON. IN THE MEANTIME, THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT ON APRIL THE NINTH, UM, 2020, UH, APRIL THE NINTH, THEY BEGAN, UH, A NEW PROCESS TO CREATE ANOTHER LIST OF ELIGIBLE SERGEANTS TO PROMOTE TO, UM, THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT. THAT WAS ON APRIL THE NINTH OF THIS YEAR. AND AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE NO VACANCIES FOR THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT, AND THERE WAS A ELIGIBILITY LIST IN EFFECT. SO, UH, MY CLIENTS ARE PUZZLED AS TO WHY THAT WOULD OCCUR, BECAUSE THE PROCESS WAS DESIGNED AND SCHEDULED IN A WAY THAT IT WOULD TAKE EFFECT, UM, IMMEDIATELY ON THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR LIST. UM, THEN THE PROBLEM HAPPENS HERE WHEN THERE IS ANOTHER LIST, AN ELIGIBILITY LIST IS GENERATED. AND ON APRIL THE 29TH OF 2024, NOW THIS IS BY DEFINITION AN ELIGIBILITY LIST. UH, MY CLIENTS ARE ON THAT LIST AS WELL. UH, THEY HAD BEEN ON THE PREVIOUS ELIGIBILITY LIST, AND THEY'RE ON THE NEW ELIGIBILITY LIST FROM APRIL THE 29TH, 2024. UH, IT IS NOT AS THE, UH, PREVIOUS LIST. IT'S NOT AN UPDATED LIST BY THE DEFINITION OF THE RULES. IT'S AN ELIGIBILITY LIST. AND IN FACT, IF THE CITY IS GONNA CLAIM THIS IS THE SAME LIST OR AN UPDATED LIST, AGAIN, THERE'S NO SUCH ANIMAL IN THE CIVIL SERVICE PROCESS, UPDATED LIST. AND BECAUSE MY CLIENTS ARE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION AS FAR AS RANKING, THE SCORES ARE DIFFERENT. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY, UH, UH, ANOTHER PERSON TO THAT LIST. SO THAT LIST, UH, HOWEVER IT WAS SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE EARLY, EXPIRE BEFORE THE 548TH DAY. UH, THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT RETAINED THE PREVIOUS EXPIRATION DATE FROM THE OTHER ELIGIBILITY LIST, INSTEAD OF CALCULATING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF 548 DAYS TO THE DATE THAT THIS LIST ELIGIBILITY LIST WAS ESTABLISHED. AND WHAT THE RULES SAY IS THAT IT'S SUPPOSED, THE, THE LIST IS SUPPOSED TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR 548 DAYS AFTER THE DATE, THE CERTIFICATION [00:25:01] OF ELIGIBILITY IS MADE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO THAT DATE WAS APRIL 29TH, 2024 FOR THAT ELIGIBILITY LIST. AND THEREFORE, LIST SHOULD NOT EXPIRE EARLY. AS THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS PROCLAIMED IT SHOULD SURVIVE, UH, FOR 548 DAYS. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR OUR GRIEVANCE, BECAUSE THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS CONTORTED THE RULES. THEY'VE MISAPPLIED AND, AND, UH, MISINTERPRETED RULES, UH, AND TRIED TO INVENT A, UH, TYPE OF LIST THAT DOESN'T EXIST. THEY'RE TRYING TO INVENT AN UPDATED LIST WHEN THE RULES CLEARLY SAY WHAT AN ELIGIBILITY LIST IS, THE FACTS BEFORE THE, THE BOARD ARE GONNA SHOW CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE LIST IS, UM, THAT WAS PUBLISHED, PUT OUT ON APRIL 29TH AS AN ELIGIBILITY LIST. THEREFORE, UM, THIS LIST SHOULD NOT EXPIRE UNTIL I THINK, BY MY CALCULATIONS, OCTOBER THE 29TH, 2025, AND NOT EXPIRE SOONER THAN THAT. SO FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE ASKING THAT OUR GRIEVANCE BE, UH, GRANTED AND ANY OTHER , UM, THAT THE, THAT THE BOARD THINKS WE'RE ENTITLED TO. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. TYLER. MR. MARTIN, DO YOU WISH TO SAY ANYTHING OR YOU JUST VERY BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIR? OKAY. UH, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT OF THE GRIEVANCE IS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES REQUIRES, AND THIS IS QUOTING MR. SNYDER REQUIRES AT A MINIMUM 18 MONTHS. IF YOU JUST READ THE ACTUAL RULE, IT SAYS THAT IT'S NOT TWO EXCEED 18 MONTHS. 18 MONTHS IS THE CAP. IT'S NOT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. IT COULD BE THE ELIGIBILITY LIST COULD BE SIX MONTHS, IT COULD BE A YEAR, IT COULD BE WHATEVER THE CHIEF AND THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT DECIDE ON. AND SO THE IDEA THAT ANY TIME, UH, A, A LIST IS UPDATED WITH PEOPLE THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO TAKE THE INITIAL EXAMINATION BASED ON FMLA OR MILITARY SERVICE, THAT THIS SOMEHOW REQUIRES THAT THE EXPIRATION DATE BE EXTENDED IS JUST FALSE. IT'S NOT IN THE WRITTEN RULE OF THE LIST. EVEN IF YOU AGREE WITH MR. SNYDER THAT THE IDEA THAT IF, IF, IF YOU'VE UPDATED THE LIFT BASED ON PEOPLE WHO HAD TO TAKE THE MAKEUP EXAM, THIS SHOULD MOVE OUT. THE, THIS SHOULD MOVE OUT THE EXPIRATION DATE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO BE 18 MONTHS. 18 MONTHS IS THE MAXIMUM. IT COULD BE SIX MONTHS. AND MR. DAVIS IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THE CHIEF CAN DECIDE THEY WANT A NEW ELIGIBILITY LIST. UH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE WHOLE IDEA THAT 18 MONTHS IS THE MINIMUM. IT'S IN THE WRITTEN QUESTION. IT'S IN THE RULE NOT TO SHALL NOT EXCEED 18 MONTHS FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LIST. THIS LIST WAS ESTABLISHED ON APRIL 12TH, 2024. AND SO THE IDEA THAT THERE IS SOME KIND OF OBLIGATION WITHIN THE RULES IS, IS, IS, IS, IS CONTORTING THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE RULES, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE BEFORE YOU, YOU COULD LOOK AT IT NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS, DOES NOT EQUAL A MINIMUM OF 18 MONTHS. THAT HAS TO CONSTANTLY BE UPDATED BASED ON EVERY TIME SOMEBODY HAS TO TAKE A MAKEUP EXAM. AND THAT'S JUST NOT IN THE RULES. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN PRACTICE. AND IT'S, IT'S ANTITHETICAL TO WHAT THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE LIST IS, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ELIGIBILITY LIST DOESN'T GET STALE. NOW, THE LAST THING I WANNA SAY IS ALL OF THESE GRIEVANCE, WERE PUT ON THIS LIST ON APRIL 12TH, 2024. THIS LIST IS GONNA EXPIRE OCTOBER 12TH, 2024. ALL OF THESE GRIEVANCE WILL HAVE BEEN ON THE ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR 18 MONTHS. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING IS TO VIOLATE THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND TO EXTEND THEIR ELIGIBILITY BEYOND 18 MONTHS. SO THEIR REMEDY IS ACTUALLY THE VIOLATION. AND SO THAT'S THE CITY'S POSITION. AND, AND CERTAINLY MR. DAVIS IS HERE TO, TO DISCUSS THE, THE MORE, UH, UH, THE, THE, BOTH, THE PRACTICAL AND, AND THE, UH, UH, THE RULE-BASED, UH, BASIS FOR, FOR, FOR THIS, UH, FOR THIS LIMIT, THIS CAP ON THE ELIGIBILITY LIST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. MR. SCHNEIDER, I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR FIRST WITNESS. I'D LIKE TO CALL MR. DAVIS AND LESLIE, WOULD YOU BE SINE TO SWEAR HIM IN? YES. DID YOU SAY MR. DAVIS? DAVIS? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THERE YOU ARE. OKAY. YES. WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE, SIR? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD MORNING, MR. . I'M FINE. GOOD MORNING. MORNING. GOOD MORNING. UM, SO HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED, SIR? UM, I'M EMPLOYED AS A CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SECRETARY AND DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AT THE [00:30:01] CITY OF DALLAS. OKAY. AND IN YOUR, IN YOUR JOB RESPONSIBILITIES ARE, DO YOU OVERSEE THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS IN THE, FOR THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT? YES, SIR, I DO. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE, UH, FOR PROMOTIONS TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO I WANTED TO, DID YOU, UH, WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO, UH, EXHIBIT TWO I IN MY BOOK? DO YOU HAVE THAT, SIR? LET ME GIMME A MOMENT. IS IT UNDER A FAITH'S LABEL OR IT'S JUST A WHITE PAGE IN FRONT OF IT, RIGHT? YEAH, THERE'S JUST, JUST A SECOND TOO. I, TOO, I, YES, SIR. AND IN MY MATERIALS WILL BE THE VERY LAST PAGE OF MY MATERIALS. OKAY. DID YOU FIND IT, SIR? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO LET'S SEE. UM, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A SHEET THAT WAS GENERATED, UM, AND, AND PROVIDED TO ME BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, I DON'T KNOW THE SOURCE OF THIS DOCUMENT TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU. SO I DON'T KNOW WHO IS THE PROVIDER. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IN THAT? I, NO, I REALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS. RIGHT. LET'S SEE HERE. DO YOU, IS THIS, UH, DEPARTMENT, DO YOU, DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT KEEP TRACK OF VACANCIES IN RANKS? UH, NO, SIR, WE DO NOT. MR. CHAIR, I THINK BASED ON WHAT WE DO, UH, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A, A DOCUMENT THAT I WOULD OBJECT TO ADMITTING, WELL, LET'S SEE. LET'S SEE WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS AND MAKE A RULING AFTER THAT. OKAY. MR. SNYDER, YOU AND I GIVE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN THIS DOCUMENT, WHAT THIS IS? YES, SIR. I'M GETTING THERE RIGHT NOW. UM, OKAY. TRYING TO SHARE, I'M TRYING TO SHARE, I THINK WITH YOU, SO SORRY, I AM HAVING TROUBLE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JUST A MOMENT. MR. STI, THIS IS, THIS IS GREG MARTIN. MR. SNYDER? MM-HMM . I'M NOT TRYING TO BE ATE. IF THIS WAS PROVIDED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT AS IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENA, I, I CAN TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT, BUT OBVIOUSLY JUST MR. DAVIS, IF, IF HE DOESN'T HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IT. OKAY. WELL, I'M TRYING TO SHARE SOMETHING AND I'M HAVING GET IN. I CAN'T GET TO MY DESKTOP HERE FOR SOME REASON. UM, OKAY. WELL, I'LL TRY TO MOVE FORWARD THEN. UM, SURE. DAVIS, YOU, YOU AND AGAIN, I, I'M SORRY, MR. STEIN, I'LL DRAW MY OBJECT. IF, IF, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU REPRESENT IT WAS PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENA BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, THEN NO. THEN I WILL HAVE AN OBJECTION ADMITTING IT. OKAY, THEN WELL, I'D LIKE TO OFFER IT INTO, UM, INTO EVIDENCE THEN, MR. MARTIN. I DIDN'T, SURE. I'M NOT QUITE SURE. YOU'RE SPEAKING KIND OF FAST THERE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF THIS, IF THIS DOCUMENT WERE CREATED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, YOU'D HAVE NO OBJECTION TO SUBMISSION? THAT'S CORRECT. I APOLOGIZE, MR. WELSH. UH, JUST, JUST IN ORDER TO MOVE THINGS ALONG, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BE, UH, OBSTINATE HERE. IF, IF, IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT MR. CIDER SAYS HE'D RECEIVED, THAT'S PART OF THE SUBPOENA, THEN, THEN I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ADMITTING IT. OKAY. I, WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. I MEAN, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ADMITTING IT. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT THAT'S FINE. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO, UM, MR. DAVIS, DID YOU RECEIVE REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA OR INFORMATION FROM ME? UH, BACK ON JULY 28TH? DO YOU RECALL THAT? UM, YES. AND THEN, UH, YOUR OFFICE? UH, I REQUESTED DOCUMENTS SHOWING VACANCIES POSITION OF LATINO. OKAY. BUT FOR A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME FROM, UH, JANUARY 1ST TO JULY 28TH. OKAY. DID YOU, DID YOU REALIZE THAT, UM, I I PROBABLY DID NOT REALIZE, UM, ALL OF THE DETAIL OF YOUR SUBPOENA REQUESTS, UH, BUT INSTEAD WANTED TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS RESPONDED TO WITH WHATEVER INFORMATION, AND [00:35:01] THEN YOUR, YOUR ASSISTANT PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION AND RE AND IN RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST DOCUMENTS REFLECTING, OKAY. WHAT VACANCIES WERE, UH, EXISTED FOR THE POSITION OF LIEUTENANT? DO YOU DISPUTE THAT? NO, I, I, I DON'T. IF, IF, IF OUR DEPARTMENT PROVIDED YOU WITH THESE DOCUMENTS, UM, THEN THEY ARE A DOCUMENT THAT IT WAS A DOCUMENT WITHIN OUR CUSTODIAL CARE. OKAY. THEN YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THEN, UH, ACCORDING TO WHAT I WAS PROVIDED BY YOUR OFFICE, UH, IN THE FIRST PART OF THIS YEAR, JANUARY THROUGH JULY, THERE WERE NO VACANCIES FOR THE POSITION OF LIEUTENANT, IF THAT'S WHAT THIS DOCUMENT, IN FACT, DETAILSS, AGAIN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS DOCUMENT OR, OR THE DATE OF BEHIND IT, BUT IF, IF THE COLUMN 2024 AND 2025 IS REFLECTIVE OF VACANCIES, I SEE IT, IT, IT SHOWS ZERO IN 2025. I, I, I, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I CAN PROVIDE YOU BY WAY OF YOUR QUESTION. YEAH. SO, SO YOU DON'T, SO THAT WHEN THE, WHEN THE LIST, UH, THERE WAS A NEW PROCESS THAT STARTED IN APRIL THIS YEAR FOR PROMOTIONS TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT, CORRECT? NO. WAS THERE, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW PROCESS, UM, AS IT RELATES TO PROMOTIONS, IS THERE NOT, UM, PROMOTIONAL MOTION OF LIEUTENANT POLICE? LIEUTENANT, I'M SORRY, YOU WERE A BIT MUFFLED. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? IS THERE A, IS THERE A PROCESS FOR PROMOTION TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT CURRENTLY UNDERWAY? CORRECT. AND THAT PROCESS STARTED ON APRIL THE NINTH, 2025? CORRECT. IS THAT THE DATE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT? YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE, THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE PROMOTIONAL EXAM ON APRIL 9TH OF 25 THAT YOUR OFFICE PUT OUT CORRECT. NOT HAVING THE PROMOTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT IN FRONT OF ME. I, I, I WOULD AGREE THAT WE ANNOUNCED A PROMOTIONAL EXAM IN, IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. DO YOU HAVE MY, DO YOU HAVE MY POSITION STATEMENT AND MATERIALS IN FRONT OF YOU? YES, I HAVE IT HERE. IF YOU WANNA POINT MY ATTENTION TO SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TURN THAT. ACTUALLY, IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE GRIEVANCE. THE ORIGINAL BRIEF THAT I FILED IS PART OF WHAT'S MY EXHIBITS. YOU SEE THAT? WHAT, WHAT EXHIBIT ARE YOU POINTING ME TO? YOU SEE, I'M SORRY, WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE? LET ME GET THERE. ONE MOMENT. NO OBJECTION. IN MY IMAGINATION, I'M NOT SEEING A DISTINCTION FOR EXHIBIT ONE. WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE CONTENT OF EXHIBIT ONE? THAT'S THE GRIEVANCE PACKET THAT WAS FILED, UM, WITH, BY MY CLIENT, UM, AND IT WAS FILED, OH, I'M HERE. I SEE IT. GOT IT. YEAH, I, YEAH, THE PAGES WERE HARD TO FIND. YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IF I CAN INTERRUPT Y'ALL FOR JUST A MOMENT, CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHERE THAT IS IN THE PACKET? I'M LOOKING FOR GROUP, UH, EXHIBIT ONE, TWO. I FIND EXHIBIT TWO. OKAY. IT IS IN THE PACKET. IT'S KIND OF HIDDEN, MR. CHAIR, IT'S BEHIND THE POSITION STATEMENT. BEHIND THE POSITION STATEMENT. OKAY. IT'S THE, YEAH, IT'S THE, AT THE LAST PAGE OF THE POSITION STATEMENT. THEN YOU GET INTO EXHIBIT ONE. OKAY. YES, MR. SCHNEIDER. [00:40:02] OKAY. ALL. SO THEN IF WE LOOK AT THE, THE EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE, THE FIRST ONE YOU SEE ATTACHED TO THAT IS YOUR, YOUR DECISION, UH, FROM MAY 23RD, CORRECT? I TAKE NOTICE, YES. OKAY. WE KEEP GOING BACK THERE. YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'LL FIND THE PROMOTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT, AND THEY'RE NOT NUMBERED, BUT IN HERE, TWO PAGES BACK, CIVIL SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT OR PROMOTIONAL, THERE'S GONNA BE GIVEN ON JULY THE EIGHTH OF THIS YEAR. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND IT. I'M THERE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO THAT'S A LOT OF WORK, BUT I'M JUST, UM, AND I, I'D LIKE TO OFFER EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE INTO EVIDENCE. ANY OBJECTION? NO OBJECTION. IT'S ADMITTED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WE SEE THE TIMELINE HERE. UM, SEE THE, THE PROMOTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT. THEN ON THE THIRD PAGE OF THE PROMOTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT, WE SEE THE, THE TIMELINE THERE, UM, THAT GOES FROM APRIL TO NINTH, 2025. THAT ENDS ON OCTOBER THE 14TH, 2025. YOU SEE THAT MR. DAVIS CORRECT? I'M THERE. MM-HMM . OKAY. SO THE, AND APRIL THE NINTH, ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO ME, THERE WERE NO VACANCIES FOR IN THE POSITION OF LIEUTENANT. CORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WE PREVIOUSLY LOOKED AT. UM, IF, IF THAT COLUMN AGAIN DENOTES VACANCIES, IT'S, IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THE READING OF IT. I, I'LL SAY ZERO BASED ON THAT DOCUMENT. AND THEN TELL ME WHY, WHO DECIDED TO COME IN THIS, THIS PROCESS FOR, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. BESIDES THAT, WHAT CREATED THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS PROMOTIONAL EXAM IS THE FORMER INTERIM CHIEF OF THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT INFORMED ME THAT HE WOULD LIKE ANOTHER SERIES OF PROMOTIONAL EXAMS TO OCCUR, UM, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND SO WE STARTED TAKING STEPS TO WORK WITH BOTH OUR VENDOR AND INTERNALLY TO CAUSE A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION TO, TO OCCUR, AND WE ADMINISTERED THAT WRITTEN EXAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT ON JULY 8TH, 2025. OKAY. AND THEN WHEN THE TIMELINE WAS PRODUCED HERE, LOOKS LIKE A, IT'S CALLED, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A DATE OF OCTOBER 14TH IS THE END OF THE PROCESS. IS THAT CORRECT? ACCORDING TO THIS TIMELINE, CORRECT. UM, THE WRITTEN EXAM WOULD TAKE PLACE ON JULY 8TH. THE ASSESSMENT CENTER WOULD TAKE PLACE THEREAFTER, AND WE WOULD POST COMBINED SCORES CREATING THE ELIGIBILITY, THE REGISTER OF ELIGIBLES ON OCTOBER 14TH, 2025, AS THE OTHER ONE ENDS ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2025. SO THAT DATE, OCTOBER THE 14TH, 2025, THAT WAS INTENTIONAL BASED OFF OF YOUR, THE PERCEPTION THAT THE ACTIVE LIST THAT WAS, THAT WOULD, THAT DID EXIST THAT IT STARTED, THAT EXPIRED ON THE 12TH. IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY CALCULATION OR INTENTIONALITY. I THINK THAT THERE WAS KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY TWO EXISTING LIST OR OVERLAPPING LIST AT ANY TIME. BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THE CHIEF'S DESIRE TO HAVE A, UH, A NEW REGISTER BE PRODUCED SOON. I THINK THAT'S THE DATE, UM, THAT, THAT WE KIND OF BACKED OUT AND ENDED AND ENDED ON. SO I DON'T, YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO, TO, TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION OTHER THAN I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY INTENTIONAL CALCULATION TO CREATE A PERCEPTION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO YOUR QUESTION. OKAY. OKAY. SO, BUT WHEN YOU, WHEN THAT PROCESS WAS STARTED, UH, FOR THE 2025 EMOTIONAL EXAM, UH, STARTED AROUND APRIL THE NINTH, UM, OF THIS YEAR, THERE WERE NO VACANCIES FOR IN, IN THE POSITION OF POLICE LIEUTENANT WERE THERE? I, THAT'S NOT WHAT I RESPOND TO IS A CHIEF'S REQUEST TO CONDUCT, UH, A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION. OKAY. I DEFER AND COUNT ON THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR AND TRACK WHEN THEY WILL PROMOTE, WHEN THEY, [00:45:01] WHEN THEY WON'T PROMOTE. UM, SO WHEN THEY ANNOUNCE AS THE RULES PRESCRIBED, WHEN THEY ANNOUNCE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, THAT'S WHEN WE TOOK INTO GEAR TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOES HAPPEN. AND WHEN, UH, INTERIM CHIEF IGO, UH, YOU SAID HE, THAT A NEW BEGUN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, DID AT THAT TIME, DID ANYONE NOTIFY YOU OF A VACANCY IN THE, IN, IN THE POSITION OF LIEUTENANT? I WAS NOTIFIED FROM THE INTERIM CHIEF TO CAUSE THIS TO OCCUR. AND SO I, I TOOK THAT TO MEAN THAT THERE, THERE WOULD BE VACANCIES OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, UM, TO MAKE THE EXAM OCCUR. OKAY. BUT THIS, THAT'S MY QUESTION, SIR. LIKE, WERE YOU GIVEN NOTICE OF A VACANCY IN, IN THE POSITION OF LIEUTENANT? UH, NO, I WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE. NOR NOR AM I EVER, I SIMPLY RESPOND TO THE CHIEF'S REQUEST, BE THAT IN FIRE POLICE TO CAUSE A PROMOTIONAL EXAM TO OCCUR. OKAY. AND OF COURSE, WHEN, WHEN IGO CHIEF INTERIM CHIEF IGO REQUESTED THAT YOU, UM, ANNOUNCED THE AFFILIATION, UH, YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A CURRENT ELIGIBILITY ELIGIBILITY LIST IN EXISTENCE, CORRECT? I, I WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS A CURRENT ELIGIBILITY LIST IN EXISTENCE. OKAY, SIR. SO, UM, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS TOPIC WE HAD ABOUT, UM, WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, I'VE DISCUSSED IT. MR. MARTIN HAS DISCUSSED THIS RULE, UM, AND IT'S, IT'S IN MY RULE, IT'S GONNA BE SERVICE RULE 4.3 E UH, IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO YOU THERE IN, IN MY GRIEVANCE IN EXHIBIT, WHICH, WHICH EXHIBIT? COULD YOU POINT ME TO IT? EXHIBIT ONE. OKAY, LET ME, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE RULE REFERENCE THAT YOU HAVE ON PAGE TWO OF FIVE? IT'S PAGE FOUR OF FIVE. THAT'S THE ENTIRE RULE THERE. OKAY. YES, SIR. WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT HERE. UM, ON THE, THE LANGUAGE HERE, IT SAYS, ON ANY DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION, THE NAMES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS MAKING PASSING GRADES SHALL BE PLACED ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST. UM, SO THE, THE WHAT WE'VE SEEN THE DEFINITION OF AN ELIGIBILITY LIST, CORRECT? I'M, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? YOU'VE SEEN THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST, CORRECT? UM, NOT RECENTLY. IS THERE SOMEWHERE YOU WANT TO POINT ME TO, TO TAKE NOTICE OF, OF THAT DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES, SIR. SO YOU CAN JUST THUMB BACK TO PAGE TWO OF PAGE TWO THERE. OKAY. SO HERE'S THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST FROM RULE ONE. SEVEN SAYS MEANS A LIST OF APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WHO MEET POSITIONS, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION AS APPLICABLE. UM, THE ELIGIBILITY LIST, THAT'S THE LIST THAT YOUR OFFICE PUTS OUT THAT HAS NAMES OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO PROMOTE TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. IT'S A PRETTY, THAT DEFINITION'S PRETTY EASY TO UNDERSTAND, ISN'T IT? THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST, YEAH. ON, ON ITS FACE. OKAY. SO LET'S GO BACK TO SECTION OR RULE 4.3 E. SO WE GET THE FIRST HERE ELIGIBILITY LIST. WE SEE THAT WHERE PROMOTION, THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION HAS CONSISTENT PART OF AN ASSESSMENT CENTER. THE PROMOTIONAL ELIGIBILITY, SORRY, ELIGIBILITY LIST SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE LIST IS ESTABLISHED OR EXHAUSTED. NOW, THIS IS THIS PROMOTIONAL EXAM FOR THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT THAT DOES INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT CENTER, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. SO ACCORDING TO THIS, THE LIST WILL REMAIN, [00:50:01] IN EFFECT, SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT, PERIOD, NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS, CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT IT READS. OKAY. SO IT'S SAYING IT MUST REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD, RIGHT? IT SAYS SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? NO, I DO NOT. YOU DON'T. WHAT? YOU DON'T, THE, THE, THE TERM SHELL MEANS IT MUST HAPPEN. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? SHALL MEANS MUST TO ME. OKAY. SO IT MUST REMAIN, SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT, AND THEN IT GIVES A PURE TIME. THEN LET'S LOOK DOWN HERE, LET'S GO PAST THIS WHERE THAT ARE ESTABLISHED AND DO NOT INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT CENTER SHALL BE IN EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR. YOU SEE THAT? YES. NOW, THAT'S SAYING IF IT'S NOT AN ASSESSMENT CENTER, IT'S PUTTING IT, IT SAYS IT MUST BE IN EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR, CAN'T BE LESS THAN THAT, RIGHT? WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T NECESSARILY COMPREHEND THE READING OF THIS. THE WAY, UM, YOU SUGGEST I READ IT IS THAT IT, IT SHALL FOR A PERIOD, IT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS. AND SO THEN WHERE THERE'S NOT AN ASSESSMENT CENTER, IT SHALL EXIST FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. YOU THINK THAT SAYS THAT IF THERE IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT CENTER THAT IT CAN, THE LIST CAN REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ONLY SIX MONTHS AND BE WITHIN THE RULES? YES. OKAY. NOW GOING BACK TO ONE, GOING BACK TO MY EXHIBIT ONE, UHHUH , PLEASE TURN TO, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE, IT'S GONNA BE TITLED POLICE LIEUTENANT COMBINED SCORES, AND IT SAYS EXPIRATION DATE OCTOBER 12TH, POSTED 2020. OKAY? YES. YES. I, I'M, I'M THERE IT IS THE 2024 POLICE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL FINAL COMBINED SCORES, EXPIRATION DATE, OCTOBER 12TH, UH, ARE OUR REGISTER PUBLISHED BY THIS DEPARTMENT, AND IT SAYS BELOW THAT, SAYS, POSTED APRIL 12TH, 2024. DO YOU SEE THAT UHHUH? YEP. SO THAT'S, THAT'S AN ELIGIBILITY, CORRECT? THIS IS AN ELIGIBILITY LIST. AND IT'S AN ELIGIBILITY LIST BECAUSE IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST IN SERVICE RULES, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO IF YOU'LL TURN TO THE NEXT, TURN THREE PAGES AND WE'LL SEE POLICE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION, FINAL WRITTEN SCORES. WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON? I'M GONNA BE IN EXHIBIT ONE, AND THE PAGES ARE NOT NUMBERED, UNFORTUNATELY. UM, BUT IT'S A, YOU, IT'S, IF YOU WORDED EXHIBIT ONE, AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO, IF YOU GO TO EXHIBIT ONE, THERE IS A DETERMINATION LETTER ON THE CITY OF DALLAS LETTERHEAD BY ME, GRIEVANCE DETERMINATION. IF YOU FIND THAT HE'S THE PA, HE'S ON THE PAGES, PROCEED THE, UM, RIGHT AFTER THAT, THAT'S A MILE MARKER FOR YOU. SO YOU GOT EXHIBIT ONE, AND THEN I SEE THE ATTORNEY'S STATIONARY. YEAH. COME ON BACK TO A JUNE 26TH MEMORANDUM ON CITY OF DALLAS STATIONARY. BEAR WITH ME. THERE'S 67 PAGES HERE. YEAH. OKAY. IT STARTS WITH, IN THE MATTER OF SO-AND-SO. CORRECT. THEN THERE'S THE 4.3 PHYSICIAN STATEMENT WITNESS LIST. AM I STILL IN THE RIGHT PLACE? I'M JUST SCROLLING HERE. YES. OKAY. SO THEN WE GO TO EXHIBIT ONE. THERE'S THE ATTORNEY LETTER. YES. YES, MA'AM. JARED, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ON CITY STATIONARY. I'M SORRY. JUST KEEP SCROLLING. OKAY, SCROLLING. NOT, NOT TO CONFUSE MATTERS, BUT IT'S, IT'S PAGE 20 ON MY PDF AND IT'S ALSO EXHIBIT ONE OF THE, IT'S THE EXACT SAME EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT ONE [00:55:01] OF THE CITY'S EXHIBITS. THANK YOU. OH, OKAY. HOLD ON. SO I SEE I'M ON PAGE 16, PAGE 21. IT STARTS THE POLICE LIEUTENANT FINAL COMBINED SCORES. I HAVE IT AS PAGE 20 ON MY PDF 20. OKAY. THAT SAYS 2024 POLICE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL FINAL COMBINED SCORES. I BELIEVE THAT'S IT, BUT MR. SNYDER WILL CONFIRM. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. YES. WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE, THE ONE POSTING THAT WE GAVE APRIL THE 12TH THAT SAID FINAL COMBINED SCORES. THEN WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT ONE THAT SAYS EXAMINATION FINAL WRITTEN SCORES. THIS POSTED APRIL THE 29TH. 2024. CORRECT. MR. DAVIS, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE EXPLAINING TO HER WHERE WE WERE . OKAY. YEAH. SO WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THE, THE DOCUMENT THAT'S TITLED 2024 POLICE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION, FINAL WRITTEN SCORES, AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM IT SAYS, POSTED APRIL 29TH, 2024. YOU SEE THAT? I'M, I'M THERE A HUNDRED PERCENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEP. SO WE HAVE HERE OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE CIVIL SERVICES NATION. IS THAT RIGHT ON? WELL, WHAT YOU SEE, I, I I DON'T KNOW THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, BUT WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE IS AN AMENDED ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT INCLUDES THREE ALTERNATE EXAMINEES AND THE DATES OF FEBRUARY 7TH, FEBRUARY 9TH, AND APRIL 16TH, 2024, MR. DAVIS. AND THIS, AND THIS, THIS WAS REPOSTED ON APRIL 29TH, 2024. IS THIS A IT THAT HAVE COMPLETED THE CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION SUCCESSFULLY, MR. DAVIS? YES. AND IT WAS PLACED ON APRIL 29TH, 24, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND, UH, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE RULES, UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS, CORRECT? I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND THERE, THERE'S NO RULE IN, THERE'S NO DEFINITION ABOUT UPDATED LIST OR SUPPLEMENTAL LIST. IS THERE, UM, THERE IS NO, UM, RULE TO MY RECOLLECTION, UM, ABOUT UPDATED LIST OR, OR ANYTHING OF THAT, OF THAT NATURE. I'M FAMILIAR WITH OTHER RULES THAT GIVE RISES TO HOW WE GET TO THIS AMENDED LIST, BUT, BUT, BUT NONE TO THE POINT YOU ASKED. ALL RIGHTY. AND SO YOU MENTIONED EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THAT THERE WERE ON THIS APRIL OF NINTH LIST, UM, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE THREE ADDITIONAL TESTES, EXAMINEES WAS THE WORD I USED. OH, OKAY. YEAH. THREE, THREE ADDITIONAL ONES, CORRECT. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THE OTHER ELIGIBILITY LIST FROM A OCTOBER, I MEAN APRIL THE 12TH? NO, I DON'T, I DON'T CONSIDER THAT TO BE A QUOTE OTHER ELIGIBILITY LIST. UM, IF YOU TAKE NOTICE THAT EVEN BACK IN YOUR RULE REFERENCE IN EXHIBIT ONE, UM, THAT SAYS THAT THAT LIST OF ELIGIBILITY, UM, LIST ESTABLISHED, SO THE ESTABLISHMENT, UM, OF THE EL OF THE REGISTER HAPPENED WHEN WE POSTED IT ON APRIL 12TH. THAT WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LIST. AND IN THAT YOU, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WE TELL CANDIDATES IN BOTH ANNOUNCEMENT AND IN THE POSTING OF THIS LIST, THAT PLEASE NOTE THAT SCORES AND RANKING ON THIS LIST MAY CHANGE AS OFFICERS RETURN FROM FMLA OR TEMPORARY MILITARY LEAVE OR ANYTHING RELATED TO YOU, SARAH. SO APPARENTLY THE REASON I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WERE THREE ADDITIONAL EXAMINEES TO YOUR QUESTION IS ON [01:00:01] FEBRUARY 7TH, WE EXAMINED SOMEONE ON THE NINTH, WE EXAMINED SOMEONE ON THE 16TH. AND SO ONCE WE WERE ABLE TO CALCULATE THOSE SCORES, WE AMENDED THAT LIST. SO I DON'T CONSIDER THIS TO BE AN OTHER LIST. SO, UH, ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME THOUGH, UH, MR. DAVIS, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE THAT LATER TOOK A TEST LATER BECAUSE OF THEIR MILITARY SERVICE OR THEIR FEDERAL PROTECTED LEAVE, THAT WHEN THEY CAME AND GOT A LIST, THAT THEY DON'T GET TO SURVIVE ON THE, THAT LIST BECAUSE THAT LIST IS SHORT TIME-WISE. SO THOSE MEMBERS OF, UH, OTHER PEOPLE OR THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE A SHORTER WINDOW TO PROMOTE IN, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, I, I, I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THEIR WINDOW OF PROMOTION. WHAT WE DO WANT TO ENSURE IS THAT WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT FOR THE EXAMINATION BECAUSE THEY WERE AWAY, BECAUSE THAT LIST IS CREATED OUT OF ONE EXAMINATION. THAT LIST IS CREATED OUT OF THE SAME IF ASSOCIATED ASSESSMENT CENTER. UH, AND SO IF THEY'RE A WAY AND THEY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS UNDER LAW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE CONSIDERED. UM, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT YOU COULD NEVER DETERMINE THE WINDOW OF TIME, UM, BECAUSE A CHIEF COULD MAKE A DECISION THAT THEY WANTED A DIFFERENT LIST JUST OUT OF THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF THE LIST. I, I'VE SEEN INSTANCES WHERE LEADERSHIP HAS SAID, I DON'T WANT TO GO THAT FAR DOWN INTO THE PERFORMANCE QUARTILES OF THAT LIST. AND SO I WANT A MORE COMPETITIVE AND ACTIVE LIST. SO THAT THAT'S HOW WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IN INDIVIDUALS WHO'VE BEEN OUT ON FMLA MILITARY LEAVE OR ANY OTHER LEAVE AS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE RULE, THAT WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT FOR THAT EXAM AND ALSO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN A MAKEUP ASSESSMENT CENTER SO THEY CAN BE ADDED TO THE AMENDED LIST. SO, MR. DAVE, YOU'VE, YOU'VE TOLD ME THAT THE, THE LIST THAT THE ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT WAS PROMOTED OR POSTED ON APRIL THE 29TH, 2024, YOU'VE AGREED WITH ME THAT IT'S A LIST OF APPLICANTS WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A CIVIL CERVIX EXAMINATION. AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT YOU DECIDED THAT THAT LIST WAS GOING TO KEEP THE EXPIRATION DATE FROM THE PREVIOUS LIST OF OCTOBER 12TH, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS POSTED ON THE 29TH OF APRIL. UM, AND THEN EVEN THOUGH THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAD TO TAKE THE TEST LATE DUE TO, DUE TO MILITARY OR FMLA, UH, THAT THEY'RE JUST GONNA, THIS IS GONNA NOT SURVIVE AS LONG, AND YOU DETERMINED THAT, RIGHT? AS A MATTER OF, AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, ALL OF OUR LISTS HAVE A, A, A EXPIRATION DATE, UM, AND, AND WE AMEND AS AS NECESSARY. LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE. YOU COULD HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS OUT FOR 17 MONTHS, UM, AND RETURNED IN THE 17TH MONTH, AND WE WOULD GIVE THEM THE, THE SAME OP, THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE, AND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSMENT CENTER. SO HAS THAT HAPPENED BEFORE? UM, NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION, BUT TO MY RECOLLECTION, I, I HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH ON 'EM, BUT WE HAVE HAD SOME THAT HAVE BEEN LATER OR SOONER OR, YOU KNOW, VARYING INSTANCES. WELL, MY QUESTION, OH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GIVING HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT, UH, EVEN SHORTER TIME PERIODS, BUT THAT'S THE DECISION THAT YOU MAKE, RIGHT? YOU DECIDED YES. THAT TO KEEP THE SAME EXPIRATION DATE AS THE, AS THE LIST THAT WAS POSTED ON APRIL THE 12TH WHEN YOU POSTED THE LIST ON APRIL 29TH, CORRECT? YES. THAT'S A PRACTICE THAT WE CONSISTENTLY, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CONSISTENTLY PRACTICE WITH, WITH, WITH OUR ELIGIBILITY LIST. OKAY. AND, AND WERE YOU TRAINED TO DO ANYTHING? I BEG YOUR PARDON? WERE YOU TRAINED TO DO IT THAT WAY? LIKE, UM, WHEN YOU, LET ME, LET ME TRY TO CLARIFY WHAT I'M ASKING. YOU JUST SAID THAT'S A PRACTICE, SO, UM, IS THAT A PRACTICE THAT YOU, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU ADOPTED WHEN YOU TOOK YOUR POSITION? CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU, SIR. PASS THE WITNESS. MR. MARK? YES. THANK YOU. UH, MR. DAVIS, CAN, CAN I ASK YOU TO GO TO EXHIBIT ONE OF THE CITY'S EXHIBITS? UM, [01:05:01] AND, AND FOR THE, THE BOARD? IT, IT IS THE SAME, UH, IT'S THE SAME, UH, UH, EXHIBIT WE JUST LOOKED AT MR. SNYDER, THIS IS THE APRIL 12TH. OKAY. UH, LIST. UM, SO JUST, I, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DATES THROWN AROUND. JUST SORT OF WALK US THROUGH SORT OF WHAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, OF THIS EXAM. SO EXHIBIT ONE SHOWS THAT, AND I'LL, I'LL READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. DETACHED LIST CONTAINS THE OVERALL PROMOTIONAL SCORES DERIVED BY COMBINING THE FINAL SCORES OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION GIVEN JANUARY 30TH, 2020, THE ALTERNATE WRITTEN EXAMS GIVEN ON FEBRUARY 7TH AND NINTH, 2024, AND THE SCORES FROM THE ASSESSMENT CENTER ADMINISTERED ON MARCH 25TH, 2024. DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? CORRECT. SO GIMME AN TELL, TELL US WHY SOMETIMES THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMS, UH, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATION OF THE, OF THE SAME EXAM. WELL, UM, AS WE LOOK HERE, UM, WE ACTUALLY, NOT TO SPEAK IN HYPOTHETICALS, IT APPEARS THAT WE GAVE ALTERNATE EXAMS ON THE, ON THE SEVENTH AND THE NINTH, UM, AND THE 25TH OF MARCH FROM AN ASSESSMENT CENTER FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT BEING ABLE TO ATTEND. SO AGAIN, THE REASON WHY YOU MAY HAVE AN AMENDED LIST OF THE SAME REGISTER OF ELIGIBLE IS IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OUT ON A QUALIFYING LEAVE, AND WHEN THEY RETURN, WE AMEND IT AND, AND, AND REPUBLISH THAT LIST. SO NOW EVERYONE KIND OF UNDERSTANDS WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY FALL, AND THAT'S WHY WE ALSO GIVE THE DISCLAIMER THAT, YOU KNOW, SCORES AND RANKINGS MAY CHANGE AS INDIVIDUALS RETURN, RETURN TO AND FROM LEGAL. OKAY. AND THIS LIST WAS POSTED ON APRIL 12TH, 2024, AND IT SAYS IT'S GONNA EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2025, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THAT'S 18. IT IT, IT'S GONNA BE, UH, IT'S GONNA BE ACTIVE FOR 18 MONTHS, RIGHT? CORRECT. UM, AND IS IT HAVE TO BE 18 MONTHS? COULD IT BE SHORTER? IT CAN BE SHORTER IF, IF IT IS NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS. RIGHT. AND IF IT NEEDS TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS, WE WOULD, THE CHIEF WOULD SEND A REQUEST TO ME AND PROVIDE THE RATIONALE FOR AN EXTENSION, AND I WOULD COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD, UM, AND HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL, BUT LET THE BOARD MAKE A REQUEST TO EXTEND. BUT IT ALWAYS CAN BE SHORTER, UM, FOR THE COMPETITIVE RANKINGS AND NATURE OF THE LIST THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER TO MR. SNYDER. SO YOU CAN'T UNILATERALLY DECIDE TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. CAN I, CAN I SHOW YOU EXHIBIT TWO, UH, OF THE CITY'S EXHIBITS? UH, AND THEN THIS IS THE APRIL 29TH, UH, UPDATE. OKAY. SO HERE IT SAYS THERE WAS ANOTHER ALTERNATE EXAM ON APRIL 16TH, 2024, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY THIS LIST TWO WEEKS LATER WAS UPDATED? CORRECT. AND THIS HAS THE SAME EXPIRATION DATE THAT IT'S GONNA EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2025, CORRECT? CORRECT. DOES, DOES THAT OCTOBER 12TH, 2025, UH, EXPIRATION DATE, DOES THAT EXCEED 18 MONTHS FROM THIS POSTING? NO, IT'S WITHIN. AND SO, AND SO THIS IS WITHIN THE RULES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, CORRECT? CORRECT. NOW, IF YOU DID CHANGE THIS DATE TO, LET'S SAY OCTOBER 29TH, IF YOU DID CHANGE THIS DATE, THAT WOULD MEAN THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ON THE INITIAL LIST WOULD BE ON THE ELIGIBILITY REGISTER FOR LONGER THAN 18 MONTHS, CORRECT? CORRECT. WAS THERE SOMETHING YOU CANNOT DO? CORRECT. I CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT THE BOARD APPROVAL. WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL AND A CHIEF'S REQUEST. AND DID THE CHIEF REQUEST THAT YOU EXTEND THIS ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR LONGER THAN 18 MONTHS? NO. SO PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, WHY, WHY DO, WHY IS 18 MONTHS SORT OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR THESE LISTS TO BE IN EFFECT? IT'S, IT'S UNDER THE NOTION OF WHEN WE LOOK AT HOW WE CONDUCT PROMOTIONS, UM, WITHIN OUR SWORN RANKS, IT'S ABOUT ENSURING MERIT AND FITNESS, AND IT'S A COMPETITIVE RANKING. I MEAN, THESE PEOPLE ARE RANKED ONE THROUGH WHATEVER, BASED ON HOW THEY PERFORM WITHIN THE WRITTEN EXAM AND WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM THAT SHOWS THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION TO THE DOMAINS AND TO THE, TO THE FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE OF, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIEUTENANT IN THE, IN THIS LEADERSHIP POSITION OF LIEUTENANT. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS, THE 18 MONTHS IS TO SAY WE DON'T LIKE LISTS GETTING OLD AND STALE, AND WE KNOW THAT IF WE CONTINUE COMING DOWN FROM THE NUMBER RANKED PERSON, JUST AS ANY ACADEMIC SETTING DOWN TO THE END, YOUR PERFORMANCE PROFILES WILL CHANGE IN TERMS OF READINESS AND ABILITY [01:10:01] IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE JOB. SO AS A, AS A MATTER OF PROMOTING COMPETITIVENESS AND MERIT AND FITNESS, ANYTHING PAST 18 MONTHS IS PROBABLY VERY LONG. THAT'S WHY WE ASK FOR EXTENSION FROM THIS BOARD, AS WELL AS PROVIDE ME WITH THE RATIONALE AS TO WHY YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT. SO WE CAN EVALUATE THAT AND MAKE THE BEST RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AS THEY ARE DISCHARGED TO OVERSEE OUR PROGRAM, TO ENSURE IT MAINTAINS ITS COMPETITIVENESS AND THAT WE ARE DOING THINGS ON THE BASIS OF MERIT AND FITNESS. AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, FOR, FOR THE, THE EXAM THAT THAT RECENTLY TOOK PLACE THAT WE LOOKED AT, THE, THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THAT TOOK PLACE IN JULY OF THE YEAR, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THAT'S THE ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT'S GONNA BE PUBLISHED ON OCTOBER 14TH. THAT LIST WILL BE PUBLISHED ON OCTOBER 14TH, ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE. UM, IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THAT EXAM, AND I KNOW THAT YOU STATED THAT INTERIM CHIEF IGO REQUESTED THAT, HAS CHIEF CUOMO REQUESTED TO EXTEND THIS EL CURRENT ELIGIBILITY LIST BEYOND THAT DATE? NO, HE HAS NOT, UM, ENCOURAGED, HE HAS NOT REQUESTED THAT I EXTEND, UM, THE LIST BEYOND THE 18 MONTHS. AND SO FOR THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO STAFF FOR THE EXAM, UH, UH, FOR JULY AND ARE GONNA BE ON THE OCTOBER 14TH ELIGIBILITY LIST, IF YOU MOVE THIS ELIGIBILITY LIST 17 DAYS, IF YOU MOVE TO OCTOBER 29TH, LIKE THEY REQUESTED FOR, IS IT POSSIBLE SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO PERFORM THE BEST ON THE EXAM WILL GET PASSED OVER? THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. SO IT'S NOT JUST ACADEMIC, RIGHT? THAT, THAT THE IDEA OF LIKE, AH, 17 DAYS, WHO CARES? LIKE SOMEBODY COULD ACTUALLY, UH, UH, UH, BE PASSED OVER FOR PROMOTION, UH, BASED ON GRIEVANCE REQUEST. DO YOU AGREE? I AGREE. AND IF THE GRIEVANCE SET FOR THE JULY EXAM, THEY COULD BE ON THE NEW LIST, RIGHT? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? IF, IF, IF THE, IF THE, I WANNA OBJECT TO THAT QUESTION AS BEING IRRELEVANT. YEAH, I, I, I'M TRYING TO SEE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NEW LIST COMING OUT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LIST. OKAY. QUESTION. I'LL DRAW THE NEW ONE COMING UP. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. SO, MR. DAVIS, TO BE CLEAR, THIS ELIGIBILITY LIST WAS ESTABLISHED ON APRIL 12TH, 2024, CORRECT? THAT, YES. THIS, THIS ELIGIBILITY LIST THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, UH, WAS ESTABLISHED ON APRIL 12TH, 2020 FOURTH. AND SO ANY INTEGRATION BEYOND OCTOBER 12TH, 2025 WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES, CORRECT? CORRECT. I'LL PASS THE WITNESS. MR. RE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER? JUST, JUST A LITTLE BIT, SIR. UM, OKAY. MR. DAVIS, YOU WERE TESTIFYING EARLIER AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PUBLISHING THE LISTS. ARE YOU TALKING, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU PUBLISHED THE LIST, UH, TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? JOG? CAN YOU JOG MY, JOG MY MEMORY TO THE, HE WAS ASKING YOU, HE WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE, UH, ELIGIBILITY LISTS AND YOU WERE USING THE TERM PUBLISHED. HE WAS USING, USING THE TERM PUBLISHED. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME AS POSTED? CORRECT. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHEN YOU MAKE IT AVAILABLE, IS THAT WHEN YOU MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS ELIGIBLE? YES. THAT'S WHEN WE, WE, WE NOTIFY EVERYONE. HERE'S THE ELIGIBILITY LIST, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THAT DEFINITION YOU READ EARLIER, HERE IT IS UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME THINGS MAY CHANGE AS INDIVIDUALS RETURN FROM THEIR APPROVED AND QUALIFYING LEAVE. AND SO YOU DO PUBLISH THAT LIST. YOU'RE CERTIFYING THE NAME, THE RANKS, AND THE, THE SCORES THAT ARE ON THAT LIST. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO YOU MAKE, WHEN, WHEN YOU GENERATED THE LIST THAT WAS POSTED ON APRIL THE 12TH, 2024, YOU WERE CERTIFIED THAT THIS IS THE LIST OF ELIGIBLES, HERE'S THEIR RANKS, THEIR SCORES, AND THEIR NAMES. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THEN WHEN YOU POSTED THE LIST ON APRIL 29TH, 2024, YOU WERE THE LIST OF NAMES RANKS, AND COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? WHEN YOU POSTED [01:15:01] THE LIST ON APRIL 29TH, 2024, YOU WERE CERTIFYING THAT LIST, THE NAMES, THE RANKS, AND THE SCORES, CORRECT? I WAS UPDATING THAT PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED LIST OF NAMES, RANKS, AND SCORES. BUT DO YOU REALIZE THAT, THAT THE NAMES RANKS AND THE SCORES WERE DIFFERENT ON THE APRIL 29TH, 24, 20 24 LIST THAN THEY WERE ON THE APRIL 12TH, 2024 LIST? I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE LIST POSTED ON APRIL 29TH INCLUDED A, AN ADDITIONAL ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT CENTER CANDIDATE THAT WAS ADMINISTERED ON THE 16TH. UM, THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIST ONE AND, AND ENLIST, ENLIST TWO, BECAUSE IN THE FIRST LIST THAT WAS PUBLISHED ON APRIL 12TH, MR. SCHNEIDER, IT INCLUDED ALTERNATE EXAMS FROM THE SEVENTH AND THE NINTH MARCH THE 25TH. THIS LIST THAT WAS POSTED BRIEF SHORTLY THEREAFTER INCLUDED AN ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT CENTER THAT WAS MISSED FOR THOSE SAME REASONS ON APRIL 16TH. SO IT, IT, IT INCLUDED ONE NEW ALTERNATE EXAM IN ORDER TO GET THAT COMBINED SCORE. SO WHEN YOU SAY DIFFERENT, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S CHARACTERISTICALLY DIFFERENT. UM, BUT FOR THE ONE ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT CENTER PERSON THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT GROUP ON THAT WAS PUBLISHED, POSTED ON APRIL 29TH, AND WHEN YOU WERE, UH, TESTIFY, MR. MARTIN, YOU WERE AGREEING WITH MR. MARTIN THAT THIS RULE ABOUT 18 MONTHS, THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CAN'T BE LESS THAN 18 MONTHS, WEREN'T YOU, YOU WERE AGREEING WITH THAT? I DO AGREE WITH THAT. I MENTIONED THAT TO YOU AS WELL. SO YOU'RE, ACCORDING TO YOU, THIS, THIS, UH, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU CERTIFY A LIST DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 18 MONTHS, IT COULD BE SIX MONTHS. IS THAT RIGHT? IT JUST SHALL NOT EXCEED 18 MONTHS. YEP. WELL, DO YOU REALIZE THAT THE SAME RULE WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY TELLS YOU EXACTLY HOW LONG THE LIST MUST BE IN EFFECT? UM, THE RULE THAT GOVERNS THIS SAYS THAT THE, THE LIST SHALL REMAIN INEFF SHALL NOT EXCEED 18 MONTHS. SO LET'S LOOK AT THE RULE AGAIN THEN. FOUR POINT TO IT AGAIN. YEAH, IT'S ON, WE WERE LOOKING AT IT BY, UH, GRIEVANCE ONE, I THINK. AND, UH, EXHIBIT ONE. YEP. IT'S PART OF MY GRIEVANCE AND IT'S ON PAGE FOUR OF FIVE. OKAY. SO THIS, SO THIS, I'LL LET MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S READY HERE. SO THIS, BUT THIS, UH, RULE, IT'S ADDRESSING, UH, TESTS THAT RECEIVE ASSESSMENT CENTERS AND THEN ALSO TESTS THAT DON'T REQUIRE ASSESSMENT CENTERS. CORRECT? CORRECT. AGREE WITH THAT? CORRECT. AND THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR LIEUTENANT DOES REQUIRE ASSESSMENT CENTERS, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND SO WE LOOK AT, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE, UM, KIND OF THE MIDDLE OF THE RULE THERE STARTS WITH FOUR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING. YOU SEE THAT? OKAY. SO RIGHT BEFORE THAT IT SAYS, LISTS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED AND DO NOT INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT CENTER SHALL BE IN EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR. AND IT SAYS, FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING EFFECTIVE DATES OF ELIGIBILITY LIST, EACH PERIOD BEGINS AT MIDNIGHT ON THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY IS MADE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT ENDS AT 11:59 PM ON THE FOLLOWING 365TH OR 548TH DAY APPLICABLE. SO IT'S TELLING YOU RIGHT THERE EXACTLY HOW TO CALCULATE THE, THE, UM, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN ELIGIBILITY LIST, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND IT SAYS, HERE'S HOW YOU CALCULATE IT. YOU START MIDNIGHT ON THE DATE, THE CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY IS MADE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND YOU GO 548 DAYS, THAT'S 18 MONTHS, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THERE'S VERY CLEAR THAT IT MUST BE EFFECTIVE FOR 548 DAYS, CORRECT? CORRECT. WELL, IT DOESN'T ALLOW LIST TO BE UNDER 548 DAYS INVOLVES A TEST WITH AN ASSESSMENT CENTER. DOES IT, UH, BASED ON THIS READING? UH, THAT IS, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. I'LL [01:20:01] PASS THE WITNESS. MR. MARTIN, ANYTHING FURTHER? YEAH, JUST STAY, STAY ON THAT, UH, THAT, UH, EXHIBIT JUST VERY QUICK, MR. MR. DAVIS. THANK YOU, SIR. SO WE WERE JUST READING ABOUT PURPOSES OF CALCULATING EFFECTIVE DATES FOR THE ELIGIBILITY LIST, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THIS IS REGARDING, IF YOU ARE CALCULATING TO NOT EXCEED 18 MONTHS, THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT, RIGHT? CORRECT. DOES THIS REQUIRE IT TO BE 18 MONTHS AT A MINIMUM? UM, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT RE REMAIN 18 MONTHS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE, THE REGISTER IN QUESTION DID HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE AND WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR 548 DAYS OR, OR 18 MONTHS. AND THEN EVEN FOR THE APRIL 29TH LIST THAT THE AMENDED LIST THAT WAS POSTED, IT DID NOT EXCEED 18 MONTHS FOR THE EXPIRATION DATE, CORRECT? NO, IT DID NOT. AND SO IF, SO, THAT LIST THAT WAS POSTED IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE RULES? CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S IT. I'LL PASS IT. OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER? NO, SIR. NO, SIR. OKAY. IF YOU WANNA CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS. YES, SIR. WE'LL CALL THOMAS. I'M SORRY, WHO IS THE WITNESS? MR. SNYDER. THOMAS. IT'S, UH, YOU WANT HIM, YOU WANT ME TO LET HIM SPELL HIS NAME OR WHATEVER YOU WANT, MA'AM? UM, SO HE'S NOT ONE OF THE GRIEVANCE? NO. OKAY. WELL, THEN YOU'RE, PLEASE REPEAT. SO LET ME, LET ME JUST EX ONE THING THAT I WANNA SAY TO EVERYBODY, THERE IS AN ECHO IN THIS AUDIO, AND IT'S AWFUL, AND I'M HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME. SO IF SOMETHING REALLY GOOD IS SAID THAT I NEED TO KNOW FOR SURE, I'M GOING TO HOLLER AT YOU. JUST FYI LESLIE, WE, WE WOULD EXPECT NOTHING LESS. SO THANK YOU, . OKAY. MR. SNYDER, TELL ME THIS WITNESS'S NAME ONE MORE TIME. THOMAS GLOVER. IT'S, UH, T-H-O-M-A-S, UH, G-L-B-E-R. THANK YOU, SIR, VERY MUCH. OKAY. I'M GONNA BE QUIET, MA'AM. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. SHOULD I, SHOULD I START? SURE. PLEASE REPEAT. OH, DO YOU WANT ME TO SWEAR IN MR. GLOVER? OH, YES. OH, YES. OKAY. MR. GLOVER, WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE? YES. UH, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. YES, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, MR. GLOVER, STATE YOUR, UH, YOUR BACKGROUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I HAVE A TOTAL OF SINCE 40 YEARS WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, 36, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AN ACTIVE OFFICER. THE LATTER PART I WOULD'VE A RESERVE. I ROSE TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT IN 2000, SERVED IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES. DURING THAT TIME, ALSO WAS THE HEAD OR IN LEADERSHIP OF THE POLICE ASSOCIATION. AND IN THAT CAPACITY, I BEGAN TO REPRESENT, WRITE AND FILE GRIEVANCES ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBERS, AS WELL AS FILING SOME MYSELF AND, UH, MR. GLOVER. SO WHAT WAS YOUR, UH, WHAT WAS THE RANK THAT RETIRED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? I RETIRED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A LIEUTENANT. OKAY. AND DURING YOUR TIME WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, AND IN, UM, EMPLOYEE PRESENTATION, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASIONS TO DEAL WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT? YES. GOING ON BACK TO DAVID TRULY, SECOND WAS PAT, AND THIRD WOULD'VE BEEN AN INTERIM DIRECTOR BY THE NAME OF PAM MCDONALD. I WORKED ON ISSUES DEALING WITH EMPLOYMENT AND PROMOTION WITH ALL THREE. AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS, UH, THAT WE'RE HERE ABOUT TODAY? VERY MUCH SO. UM, WERE YOU, DID YOU, UH, ATTEND THE MEETING, UH, THE GI GUESS THE, THE LOWER, LOWER LEVEL GRIEVANCE HEARING WITH MR. DAVIS AND THE GRIEVANCE? YES, I DID AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE GRIEVANCE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO [01:25:01] IN YOUR, AND SO ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE, THE PROMOTION PROCESS, UH, IN THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT AS WELL? YES. MY HISTORY SHOWED IT SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED THAT I HAVE OFTEN MET WITH MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE CONSULTANTS, UH, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN DR. BOOTH, TO ADMINISTER THE, UH, UH, PROMOTIONAL EXAMS AS WELL AS MANAGEMENT SCIENTISTS OUT OF PHILADELPHIA. MY INVOLVEMENT GO BACK TO THE NINETIES, 1990S. AND IN THE GRIEVANCE THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES, UH, THAT WAS RAISED IN THE INITIAL GRIEVANCE THAT WAS FILED, UH, WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, UM, UH, THERE WAS, UH, A COMPLAINT TEST, PROMOTIONAL EXAM THAT WAS ANNOUNCED ON APRIL THE NINTH, 2025. DO YOU RECALL THAT? YES, I DO. MR. WELS, I, UNLESS WE COULD GET TO, I'LL OBJECT TO THIS. THIS PERSON IS NOT A GT. HE'S NOT A PARTY TO THE GRIEVANCE. HE WASN'T, THIS IS MATTER IS ABOUT INTERPRETING A CIVIL SERVICE RULE. AND SO I THINK THAT HIS TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT IS, IS, IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE, THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT RULE WAS PROPERLY, UH, PROPERLY RULED OUT. MR. CIDER, YOUR, MR. WELCH, HE, HE'S, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK HE'S QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, UH, AND THE, AND THE PRO AND THE PROCESS. FURTHERMORE, HE'S, HE WAS, ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT AN ATTORNEY, HE REPRESENTED THE GRIEVANCE IN THIS, UH, IN, IN THE GRIEVANCE, HE WROTE THE GRIEVANCE THAT WAS FILED WITH MR. UH, DAVIS, AND HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT HE REPRESENTED THE, THE HEARING THAT THEY HAD WITH MR. DAVIS. SO I THINK IS HE'S QUALIFIED TO, UH, GIVE HIS OPINIONS ABOUT THE MATTER. YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M GONNA LET HIM GO FORWARD AND, AND TESTIFY. I, I, I UNDERSTAND MR. MARTIN CON, UH, ISSUES. UH, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK ULTIMATELY IT'S CLEAR, AT LEAST IT'S CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE, WHAT THE DECISION OF THE BOARD HAS TO CONSIDER. I'M NOT SURE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY WILL, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE INTERPRETING THE RULE. SO IF THERE'S, IF, IF MR. GLOVER HAS ISSUES ABOUT HOW THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE IS INCORRECT, I, I, I LET THAT PROCEED. UH, AND, AND SO, SO I'LL, I'LL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AND LET MR. GLOVER PROCEED. AND, AND MS. MARTIN, IF YOU FEEL THERE'S SOMETHING OUTTA LINE DURING THE, FOR THE COURT, OF COURSE, THE TESTIMONY, THIS, THIS STATE, SO WILL, WILL, WILL UPON. SO, MR. SCHNEIDER, YOU CAN PROCEED. YES, SIR. SO, UM, LIEUTENANT GLOVER, UH, IN YOUR, IN THE INITIAL GRIEVANCE, NOTED THAT THIS NEW PROCESS HAD STARTED IN APRIL 9TH OF THIS YEAR. UM, AND, UH, YOU'VE HEARD TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVIS SAYING THAT THAT WAS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF, OF THE INTERIM CHIEF AND EXPERIENCE. IS THAT, UH, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS A NORMAL OCCURRENCE IN CIVIL SERVICE? UH, I'LL, MR. GLOVER, BEFORE YOU ANSWER, I'LL JUST OBJECT TO THE, HE SAID, MR. CYRUS SAID NEW PROCESS. SO MR. DAVIS TESTIFIED SPECIFICALLY THAT IT WAS NOT A NEW PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NEW EX, A NEW ADMINISTRATION OF EXAM, BUT JUST I'LL OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION ON THAT BASIS. OKAY. MR. STEINER JUST, WILL YOU, WILL YOU PLEASE RESTATE YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU. SO THE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT 2025 PROMOTIONAL PROCESS WAS ANNOUNCED ON APRIL THE NINTH, 25. UH, AND WHEN IT WAS ANNOUNCED, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE NO TENANT VACANCIES AT THE TIME, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND YOU'VE HEARD MR. DAVIS TESTIFYING THAT HE DID, THAT THAT PROCESS STARTED AT THE REQUEST OF CHIEF AT THAT TIME, CORRECT? YES. NOW, IS THERE FOR THEM TO START A, OR ANNOUNCE A NEW PROMOTIONAL EXAM WHILE THE OTHER, OR THERE'S A ELIGIBILITY LIST IN EFFECT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE PRO PROCESS? IT HAS NOT HAPPENED IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE WA LIEUTENANT IN OVER 40 YEARS. UH, THAT RULE WAS , AND I'M GONNA, UH, HISTORICALLY, THERE WERE PROBABLY EMOTIONALLY PROCESSED IN THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT WAY BACK IN EIGHTIES. I WAS PART OF A GROUP THAT FILED A LAWSUIT OF [01:30:01] THE GRIEVANCE TO MOVE ALONG THE PROCESS AND TO MAKE IT FAIR AND TO TAKE POLITICS OUT OF IT. THAT RULE SAID THAT 548 DAYS WASN'T PUT IN UNTIL WE STARTED USING, AND THE REASON WAS IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FITNESS OF THE CANDIDATES. IT WAS ALL A BUDGETARY REASON. WHEN YOU DO AN ASSESSMENT CENTER, YOU HAVE TO BRING PEOPLE IN FROM THE OUTSIDE, YOU PAY THEM PER DIEM HOTEL FEE, AND THEY HAVE, UH, TRAVEL PLANS. SO THE CITY, IN ORDER TO MAKE IT LESS EXPENSIVE ON THE TAXPAYERS, THAT RATHER THAN HAVING TO LIST THE LAST ONE YEAR AND TESTING EVERY YEAR, ROLLING OUT THOSE FEES, WE'LL DO IT EVERY 18 MONTHS. ALSO, IT WAS PUT IN TO TAKE THE POLITICAL, THE PROMOTIONAL PROBLEM SIZE AT ONE TIME, AND MANY DISCUSSIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS THE VENDORS WHO PUT ON THE PROMOTIONAL PROCESS. WE WANTED TO TAKE OUT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO IT WAS STATED THAT THIS LIST SHALL LAST ONE YEAR, 365 DAYS, OR IT'LL LAST AND A HALF, 548 DAYS. THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. NO CHIEF LEGALLY, NO CHIEF OF POLICE CAN GO BACK AND CUT A LIST OFF EARLIER. THAT THAT'S AGAINST RULES, THAT'S AGAINST THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES. THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES ARE GROUNDED IN THE PERSONNEL RULES, WHICH ARE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CITY CHARTER CHAPTER 16, I BELIEVE IT IS 14. SO THESE RULES CAN'T BE USURPED SUBJECTIVELY BASED ON WHAT A CHIEF OF POLICE, I WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT 4:00 PM JUNE 9TH AT MY HOUSE THAT AN ANNOUNCEMENT HAD CAME OUT. I HAVE A COPY OF A TEXT MESSAGE OR EMAIL THAT I SENT, AND I COPIED, I PHOTOCOPIED THAT RULE AND SAID, THEY CAN'T DO THAT. WE FOUGHT THAT, AND THIS IS WHY IT HAS TO LAST 148 DAYS. AND THIS IS WHY, UH, CHIEF OF POLICE SERVED THE PROCESS, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS FAIR. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT NO CHIEF OF POLICE COULD LOOK AT A LIST AND STATE, I DON'T LIKE THE CANDIDATES ON THERE. I DON'T, I WANT PROMOTE THESE PEOPLE. I'M GONNA LET THIS LIST DIE, AND THEN I'LL HAVE A NEW LIST AND I'LL PROMOTE OFF THE NEW LIST. THIS IS PART OF DISCUSSIONS THAT GO BACK 15, 20 YEARS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND IT CAN BE COMMITTEE THAT WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON THIS. SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS PUT IN THAT IT SHALL BE DONE. IT WASN'T SUBJECTIVELY WE WERE DOING IT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY CANDIDATE ON THAT LIST WAS TREATED FAIRLY. THAT'S WHY IT WAS DONE. MR. WELCH, I'LL, I'LL RENEW MY OBJECTION JUST IN TERMS OF CAN WE, ANY, ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE VIOLATED ITSELF, BUT TALKING ABOUT POLITICS AND BUDGET, I THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT FOR THE, FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION. WELL, AGAIN, UH, I'LL ALLOW THE TESTIMONY AND, AND OUR, OUR, OUR GOAL HERE TODAY IS FAR NARROWER GOING BACK TO THE HISTORY OF, OF WHAT WE HAVE HEARD 20 YEARS AGO. BUT, BUT IF MR. SNOTTY, YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS? JUST A FEW. YES, SIR. JUST A COUPLE. OKAY. UM, PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. UM, THE LIEUTENANT LOVER, YOU'VE SEEN THE RULE, UM, ABOUT THE 18 MONTHS, CORRECT? THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE? YEAH. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION RULE MEANS AS FAR AS HOW LONG? IS THIS LIST SUPPOSED TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE THAT IT ? IS IT, IS IT 18 MONTHS? IS IT LESS THAN 18 MONTHS? IS IT WHATEVER TIMEFRAME THEY CHOOSE? WHAT DOES THE RULE MEAN TO YOU? IT HAS TO AS TO BE IN EXISTENCE FOR 18 MONTHS, OR 548 DAYS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE IN SOME OF THE CITY DOCUMENTS AND SOME POINTS IT'LL MEET, IT'LL LIST 18 MONTHS, IT'LL SAY EXACTLY 580. AND YOU, YOU'VE HEARD US, UH, YOU UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST. YOU'VE HEARD, UH, MR. DAVIS TESTIFY THAT WHEN, THAT THAT LIST WAS POSTED ON APRIL THE 20, 20 24, HE, HE HAS TESTIFIED WAS [01:35:01] A LIST OF APPLICANTS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION. AGREE WITH THAT? YES. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST, RIGHT? CORRECT. IN YOUR CIVIL EXPERIENCE, IN YOUR, UH, REVIEW OF THE RULES, IS THERE AN SUCH A THING AS AN UPDATED LIST OR SUPERSEDED LIST? IT'S, THERE'S ONLY ONE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST, IS THAT, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND, UM, YOU MENTIONED, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE TIME THIS, THE EXPIRATION THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS OF AUGUST, OR EXCUSE ME, OCTOBER THE 12TH OF THIS YEAR. IS THAT, IS THAT EXPIRATION DATE, CORRECT? NO, IT IS NOT. AND THEN THE WAY THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS ALIGNED THAT EXPIRATION DATE WITH THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER THE 14TH FOR THE 2025 EXAMINATION PROTOCOL, DO YOU THINK THERE THAT, UH, I KNOW ANY REASON IN THE INITIAL RE DISCUSSION, MR. DAVIS IS ON RECORD AS AGREEING WITH US, SO I KNOW WHY THAT POINT WAS ARGUED. UH, HE'S ON RECORD SAYING HE, HE AGREED THAT THE DATE IS IMPROPERLY COMPUTED. I'LL PASS THE WITNESS. MR. MARTIN? YEAH. MR. BERG, UM, THE ELIGIBILITY LIST WAS PUBLISHED ON APRIL 12TH, 2024, CORRECT? ONE LIST? WELL, IT WAS PUBLISHED ON APRIL 12TH, 2024. CORRECT. WE COULD SHOW THAT YOU HAVE YES. AND THE THREE GRIEVANCE THAT YOU REPRESENTED WERE INCLUDED ON THAT LIST, CORRECT? YES. AND THAT LIST IS ACCORDING TO MR. DAVIS, GONNA EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2025, CORRECT? YES. AND SO, THE THREE GRIEVANCE THAT YOU REPRESENTED WILL HAVE BEEN ON THAT ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR 18 MONTHS, CORRECT? THE SCORES WERE CHANGED, NO, PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION, MR. PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION. THE, THE THE THREE GRIEVANCE YOU REPRESENTED WILL HAVE BEEN ON THE ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR 18 MONTHS, CORRECT? NOT WITH CORRECT. , THE SCORES CORRECT. THE ALTER, THAT ORIGINAL LIST WOULD NOT BE VALID. THEY MOVED POSITIONS AS WELL AS NUMERICAL SCORES. SO IF THE SCORES CHANGED AND THEY MOVE UP OR DOWN, THAT'S THE LIST THAT IS VALID FOR 18 MONTHS. OKAY. AND WITH REGARDS TO, TO THIS NEW EXAM THAT TOOK PLACE IN JULY, THIS IS NOT CUTTING OFF THE 18 MONTHS FROM WHEN THE THREE GRIEVANCE WERE PUT ON THAT LIST. CORRECT. IT WAS IMPROPERLY. ACCORDING TO THE RULE, THE LIST IS GONNA EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2014. DON'T THEY NEED TO DO AN EXAMINATION BEFORE THAT EXPIRATION DATE IN ORDER TO HAVE A ACTIVE LIST? SIR, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS STATE THAT POLICE OR HIS DESIGNEE WOULD NOT CALL FOR A TEST. THAT'S IN THAT RULE THAT YOU'RE READING UNDER THAT UNTIL, UH, THERE'S A VACANCY IN THE DEPARTMENT, OR IF A LIST DOESN'T EXIST. AT THE TIME, ON APRIL 9TH, WHEN YOU CALLED FOR THE TEST, IT WAS IMPROPERLY DONE. IT VIOLATED THE RULES. IF YOU READ FURTHER, IT SAYS, IF NO CURRENT ELIGIBILITY RIGHT, EXISTS. SO THE PROPER RESPONSE THAT MR. DAVIS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE IS BASED ON THIS RULE. BASED ON THIS RULE, WE HAVE A CURRENT LIST THAT'S IN EFFECT TILL OCTOBER, WHATEVER DAY HE CHOOSES OCTOBER 29TH. SO WE CAN'T GIVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE TEST UNTIL THEN, OR YOU DON'T GIVE A TEST UNTIL AFTER THAT. SO THERE WERE NO VACANCIES ON APRIL 9TH. THERE WAS ALREADY A CURRENT ELIGIBILITY LIST IN PLACE. CHIEF OF POLICE WAS OUT OF LINE, AND MR. DAVIS WAS OUT OF LINE WHEN HE ADMINISTERED TESTS. THE RULE CLEARLY STATES THAT IF YOU READ FURTHER DOWN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 48 DAYS. IT DOES STIPULATE THAT, BUT AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT THREE OR FOUR LINES, IT CLEARLY STATES IF NO CURRENT LIST EXISTS, AND THERE IS NO LIST THAT WAS IN EFFECT, I MEAN, THERE WAS A LIST THAT WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME. SO THE LIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN STARTED. IT NEVER SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A TEST. AND WHEN YOU SAY THE RULE, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THIS CIVIL SERVICE RULE THAT, UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE? YES. THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT. [01:40:01] OKAY. YES, YES. MORE TO IT. THERE'S ANOTHER PORTION TO IT THAT YOU TURN OVER. UM, WELL, UH, PAID FOUR. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT RULE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT CALLING FOR TEST, YOU'RE SAYING CALLING FOR A TEST BEFORE AN ELIGIBILITY LIST EXPIRES, EVEN THOUGH THAT ELIGIBILITY LIST ISN'T GONNA TAKE EFFECT UNTIL AFTERWARD? THAT'S AGAINST THE RULE. IT SAYS UNLESS AN ELIGIBILITY LIST IS IN EXISTENCE, UNLESS, UNLESS, SO THE, UH, THE ACTIONS OF THE CHIEF ARE INVALIDATED BY THE PROCESS IN READING THIS RULE. AN ELIGIBILITY LIST WAS IN EXISTENCE, SO YOU SHOULD NEVER GIVE AN EXAM BASED ON THE WRITTEN GUIDELINES CIVIL SERVICE RULE, WHILE THERE IS A LIST IN, SO IF THIS LIST IS DUE TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 12TH, 2025, HOW IS THERE GONNA BE AN ACTIVE ELIGIBILITY LIST AFTER THAT DATE IF THEY DON'T DO AN EXAM BEFOREHAND? BECAUSE THE LIST SHOULD HAVE OCTOBER 29TH, NOT ON OCTOBER 12TH. AND SO WHEN YOU COME OUT WITH A SCORE COMBINED OF ASSESSMENT AND WRITTEN, AND YOU LISTED ON OCTOBER THE 14TH, AND WHENEVER IT'S GONNA COME OUT, YOU OVERLAP LEGAL VALID PERIOD OF THE CURRENT LIST. THAT'S IN EFFECT AS WE SPEAK TODAY, THAT THIS LEGALLY SHOULD NOT EXPIRE UNTIL OCTOBER 29TH. OKAY. I KNOW YOU SAID THAT YOU REPRESENTED THE GRIEVANCE AT, UH, THE HEARING, IS THAT RIGHT? YES. AND I WROTE THE GRIEVANCE, GRIEVANCE. AND YOU WROTE THE GRIEVANCE. OKAY. YES. HAVE YOU COMMUNICATED, HAVE YOU TALKED TO HER OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED WITH ANYBODY ON THE BOARD ABOUT THIS, UH, MATTER ON THE BOARD ABOUT WHO? ON THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ABOUT THIS MATTER? I KNOW CURTIS PIERRE. THAT'S THE ONLY PERSON I KNOW. OKAY. HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO HIM ABOUT THIS MATTER? I, I DIDN'T TALK TO HIM. I DID NOT TALK TO HIM ABOUT HIS GRIEVANCE. OKAY. I JUST, THAT'S FINE. FOR 30 YEARS. HE'S A FRATERNITY BROTHER, AND I SPOKE TO HIM BECAUSE HIS WIFE WAS ILL. OKAY. UM, I'LL PASS THE WITNESS. MR. STEINER, UM, THE, UM, JUST A, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW UP WITH, UH, SOME OF MR. MARTIN'S QUESTIONS. UH, MR. MARTIN WAS RAISING AN ISSUE, I GUESS HYPOTHETICAL THAT THERE, THERE, IF, IF THE PROCESS WASN'T STARTED, UM, TO CREATE A NEW, THERE COULD BE A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THERE'S NO ELIGIBILITY LIST, UH, IN EFFECT. UM, AND I WANTED, BECAUSE THE ASSET, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, AREN'T THERE PROCEDURES, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, TO FILL, UH, RANKS THROUGH ACTING POSITIONS? YES. OKAY. SO THIS, UH, IT WOULDN'T BE A DISASTER IF THERE WASN'T A TIME WHERE THERE WAS NO ELIGIBILITY LIST TO PRO PROMOTE TO, TO ANY RANK, BECAUSE IF THE CHIEF NEEDED TO FILL THE RANKS, THERE'S PROCEDURES TO WAIT TO DO THAT, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND THEN YOU MENTIONED POLITICS, UM, ABOUT, AND, AND SOME OF YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MARTIN WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THIS, UH, IN CONNECTION WITH, UM, THE TOPIC OF HAVING THIS ONE LIST, UM, UH, TIMES TO FACT, LIKE TWO DAYS AFTER THE DATE THAT, UH, THE DE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT IS SAYING THAT THE CARDLESS IS GONNA BE EXPIRED. CORRECT. SO, UH, POLITICAL REASONS, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN YOUR TESTIMONY. UM, ARE THE GRIEVANCE, UH, MEMBERS OF A MINORITY? UH, YES. MR. WELL, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'LL RENEW MY OBJECTION WITH REGARDS TO THESE QUESTIONS AS, AS TO WHAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR THIS BOARD IS. YEAH, I, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT POINT, WELL, THEY, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT POLITICS, AND I'M GONNA, I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY ABOUT WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IF YOU USE TWO LISTS BACK TO BACK AND, AND THE POSITION, UH, FROM THE, THE, UH, MS. LIEUTENANT GLOVER, THEY, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED THE, THE, THE 2025 PROCESS, AND THAT THEY DID IT FOR POLITICAL REASONS. AND I'M GETTING HIM TO CLARIFY WHAT HE MEANS BY THAT, BY POLITICAL REASONS. AND I THINK, UH, THINK HE'S GOING TO TESTIFY THAT IT'S, UH, HAS TO DO WITH RACE AND GENDER AND PROMOTIONS. I'LL RENEW THE OBJECTION. EXCUSE ME. I WILL RENEW THE OBJECTION JUST WITH REGARDS WHAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IS. THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. YEAH, I'M, I'M GONNA SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD IS, IS, WAS THERE A MISINTERPRETATION BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SECRETARY OF THE BOARD, AND, AND, AND INTERPRETING HOW THIS RULE WAS APPLIED, [01:45:01] TRYING TO GO TO MOTIVATION BEHIND WHY THE RULE MAY HAVE BEEN MISAPPLIED SEEMS TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE. AND, AND AGAIN, I WILL OPENING UP TO A DEBATE, A DEBATE ABOUT, WELL, WHAT WERE THE REAL MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THIS? AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT CHANGES THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION OF RULE FOUR POINT SECTION 4.3. SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. I'LL PASS THE WITNESS. MR. MARTIN, ANY QUESTIONS? MR. GLOVER? NOTHING FURTHER. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR NO, MR. CHAIR? NO, NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. MR. GLOVER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SURVEY. THANK YOU, MR. CIDER. UH, I GOT, UH, ANOTHER WITNESS. OKAY. UH, PRINCE? YEAH, CALLED PRINCESS DIGGINS. SERGEANT PRINCESS DIGGINS. MR. CHAIR, UH, I, I KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, TRYING TO GET THOSE, DO WE MIND IF WE HAVE A, JUST A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK? PARDON? OKAY. A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK. I, I, I APOLOGIZE. I, I JUST NEED TO RUN IT. NO, UH, I HAVE 1134. HOW ABOUT WE COME BACK AT 1140? WOULD THAT BE OKAY? GIVE EVERYONE A BREAK. SHORT BREAK. OKAY. THANK YOU. HEY, RICKY, HOLD ON. HOW DO YOU GET THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? OKAY. WE HAVE, WE HAVE FOUR BOARD MEMBERS HERE. THAT'S THE GOOD PART. I CAN SEE EVERYBODY. THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. OUR SHORT RECESS IS ENDING AT 1141. AND, UM, I BELIEVE, UH, MR. SOER, YOU WERE STARTING, YOU'RE YOUR FINAL WITNESS FOR THE TODAY. YES. YES. THANK YOU. PLEASE PROCEED. UH, I, I'M CALLING, UH, SERGEANT SIS DICKENS. UH, SHE HAS NOT BEEN SWORN YET. ALL RIGHT. WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, MA'AM? PLEASE? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. I SWEAR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SERGEANT DIGGIN. SERGEANT DIGGINS, CAN YOU TELL THE, THE BOARD MEMBERS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? YES. I'M, WE'RE A 23 YEAR VETERAN OF, OF THE, THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, PROUDLY SERVING THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS. I'VE BEEN A SERGEANT FOR 13 YEARS. UH, INCLUDE NORTHEAST, SOUTHEAST, NORTH, UH, UH, NORTHWEST PATROLS, DRUG EVIDENCE TEAM, NEIGHBORHOOD POLICING, COORDINATION UNIT, INTERNAL AFFAIRS, CENTRAL PATROL GROUP, ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT, CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAU. AND, UM, YOU'RE CURRENTLY A RANK OF SERGEANT, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND YOU'RE, YOU ENTERED THE PROMOTIONAL EXAM PROCESS LAST YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO YOU WERE, UH, YOU MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXAMINATION, CORRECT? YES. CORRECT. AND YOU COMPLETED THE, UH, ENTIRE PROCESS, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. CORRECT. AND, UM, WE'VE SEEN, UM, YOUR GRIEVANCE, AND IT'S YOU AND TWO OF YOUR FELLOW SERGEANTS, UH, THAT HAVE FILED THIS GRIEVANCE, CORRECT? YES. AND THE REASON THAT YOU'VE IS, UM, WE'VE SEEN THAT THERE LIST THAT WAS, UH, PUT OUT ON APRIL THE 12TH OF 2024, AND IT LISTED YOU, UH, AS ELIGIBLE TO YES. AND THAT LIST THAT WE'VE SEEN, IT, IT'S IN EVIDENCE, UH, THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, THEY PUT AN EXPIRATION DATE ON OCTOBER 25TH, OR SORRY, OCTOBER 12TH, 2025, CORRECT? YES. AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THAT DATE WAS CALCULATED OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE THAT REQUIRES THE LIST TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR 548 DAYS, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND IT GIVES SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CALCULATE THAT DATE, CORRECT? YES, IT DOES. AND ON THAT LIST, YOU AND, UH, SERGEANT CHAMBERS AND SERGEANT SCOTT WERE GIVEN RANKINGS AND SCORES, UM, UH, CORRECT? YES. NOW, ON APRIL 29TH, 2024, WAS AN AN ELIGIBLE, UH, THAT WAS PUBLISHED WITH YOUR NAME ON IT AS WELL, RIGHT? YES. DID YOU HAVE THE SAME SCORE AS THE, THE ELIGIBILITY LIST WAS PUBLISHED ON THE 12TH? NO. DID YOU HAVE THE SAME RANK? NO. WHAT ABOUT, UH, SERGEANT CHAMBERS AND SERGEANT SCOTT, DID THEY HAVE THE SAME RANKING? NO, [01:50:01] THEY DID NOT. DID THEY HAVE THE SAME SCORES? NO. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE ELIGIBILITY LIST IS TO CIVIL SERVICE RULES, AND SO THE, THE LIST THAT CAME OUT AND WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT ON APRIL THE 29TH, 2024, THAT WAS AN ELIGIBILITY LIST YOU WERE INCLUDED ON, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THEN, UH, DID THEY CALCULATE THE EXPIRATION DATE CORRECTLY? NO. THEY, WHAT THEY DID IS THEY SIMPLY KEPT THE EXPIRATION DATE FROM A DIFFERENT LIST, DIDN'T THEY? YES, THEY DID. JUDGE, YOU'VE CONTENDED IN YOUR, IN THE OTHER GRIEVANCE INTENDED THAT THE DURATION DATE OR THE, OR THE LIST THAT'S EFFECTIVE NOW, THAT WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL 29TH, 2025, THAT SHOULD BE, UM, OCTOBER 29TH, 2025, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND PART OF THE GRIEVANCE THAT YOU FILED ON SERGEANT SCOTT AND SERGEANT CHAMBERS RAISES THE ISSUE THAT THE WAY THAT IT'S BEEN, UH, THIS, THIS 22 5 TESTING PROCESS IS OCCURRING. SO THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT INTENDS TO HAVE A LIST A COME EFFECTIVE FROM THE 2025 TEST ON OCTOBER THE 14TH, 2020, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO, IF, IF THEY HAD, IF THEY HAD PROPERLY CALCULATED YOUR EXPIRATION DATE FOR YOUR ELIGIBILITY LIST, THAT WOULD MEAN THEY'D HAVE TWO LISTS SIMULTANEOUSLY EXISTING, CORRECT? YES. CORRECT. AND WE'VE LOOKED AT THE RULES. WE DON'T BE, YOU'RE CONTENDING ALONG WITH, UH, SERGEANT SCOTT AND SERGEANT CHAMBERS THAT THE EXPIRATION DATE WAS MISCALCULATED. CIVIL, CIVIL SERVICE RULES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, AND THAT THIS LIST YOU HAVE, THAT YOU ARE ON, UH, SHOULD NOT EXPIRE IN OCTOBER 29TH, 2025, RIGHT? RIGHT. AND DO, AS FAR AS WHY I DON'T WANT TO ASK YOU, THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT WOULD CONSTRUCT OR ALIGN THESE DATES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY WOULD EITHER HAVE, UH, BACK TO BACK THIS ONE EXPIRING, AND THEN TWO DAYS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE OTHER ONE. UM, BUT I WILL ASK YOU, WHAT COULD RESULT FROM THAT? IF, IF IT STAYED LIKE IT IS, AND YOUR LIST EXPIRED ON OCTOBER THE 12TH, AND THERE'S A NEW LIST ON OCTOBER THE 14TH, UH, WHAT COULD HAPPEN FROM THAT AS FAR AS PROMOTIONS? UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THERE TO BE A LIST IN ONE HAND AND A LIST IN THE OTHER HAND. AND THE, AND THEN THE ABILITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PICK FROM LIST A OR LIST B BASED ON WHOM YOU WANT TO PROMOTE AT THAT TIME. BECAUSE THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE GONNA KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BE ON THE OCTOBER 14TH LIST BEFORE OCTOBER 14TH, AREN'T THEY? CORRECT, YES. AND SO THAT WOULD GIVE THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THE ABILITY TO, UH, MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHO THEY CHOOSE TO PROMOTE SIMPLY BY WAITING A FEW DAYS FOR A LIST TO EXPIRE, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. DO YOU THINK IT WAS THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS ALIGNED THESE TWO TESTS TO OCCUR? AND THEY'VE STARTED THIS, THIS, THE CURRENT, THE ONE THAT PROCESS IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY STARTED EITHER WHEN THERE WERE NO VACANCIES? NO. OKAY. AND YOU'VE ALLEGED ACTUALLY, THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE RULES THAT THEY'VE DONE THAT, RIGHT? YES. AND SO I THINK WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO DO IS, IS TO PROPERLY APPLY THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES SO THAT YOUR LIST, THE LIST THAT YOU'RE, THE CURRENT LIST THAT YOU'RE ON, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL THE 29TH, THAT ONE SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE WITH A PROPER NUMBER OF, OF DAYS AND MONTHS THAT'S CLEARLY DELINEATED AND EXPLAINED IN THE CIVIL RULES. YOUR LIST IS GONNA BE IN EFFECT UNTIL OCTOBER 29TH OF THIS YEAR. CORRECT. AND THAT WOULD MEAN YOU, YOU'D BE, UH, THAT MAY MEAN YOU PROMOTING AND SERGEANT SCOTT AND SERGEANT CHAMBERS FROM, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. AND, [01:55:01] OKAY. AND THEN IF THEY DID EXTEND, IF THEY APPLIED THE PRIOR EXPIRATION DATE OF OCTOBER 29TH, 2029, YOU'RE ALSO ASKING IF THEY REALIGN THE DATES THAT ARE, THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROJECTED FOR THIS, THIS 2025 PROCESS, RIGHT? SO THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE TWO LISTS CONCURRENTLY, RIGHT? RIGHT. UH, SIMULTANEOUSLY, CORRECT. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. UM, SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS WHAT THAT IS, JUST KIND OF, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE, THE BOARD WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND WHY YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S THE RIGHT DECISION? SURE. UH, WE'RE ASKING FOR OUR CURRENT LIST, THE LIST THAT IS POSTED ON APRIL 29TH, 2024, TO BE GIVEN ITS FAIR AND DUE PROCESS, ACCORDING TO THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, 548 DAYS OF EXISTENCE WITHOUT BEING CONTESTED BY ANOTHER LIST, AND ALSO THE, THE PREPARATION PERIOD FOR A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE, UH, FOR THE TIMEFRAME. IT, IT'S THREE TO FIVE MONTHS. JUST FROM THE, UH, THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE, THE PREP FOR THE WRITTEN EXAM, THE PREP FOR THE ASSESSMENT CENTER, ALL OF THAT IS, UH, EARNED TIME AND, UH, DEDICATION SACRIFICED, MADE BY FAMILIES, NOT JUST BY THE, THE CANDIDATE WHO'S PREPARING TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE LIST, BUT ALSO TO THE FAMILIES. IT, IT AFFECTS. AND SO, FOR, UH, MYSELF AND MY COG GRIEVANCE TO, UH, TO BE, UH, SUBJECTED TO THE CONCERNS, CONCERN, OUR CURRENT ELIGIBILITY LIST BEING CHALLENGED BEFORE IT'S GIVEN ITS DUE PROCESS IS UNFAIR. IT'S UNJUST. PASS THE WITNESS. MR. MARTIN. NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. MR. STEINER, ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES? WE REST. OKAY. MR. MARTIN, ANY WITNESSES? NO WITNESSES FROM THE CITY. OKAY. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEN NO. WILL BOTH SIDES REST AND CLOSE? I, I ASSUME, AND THEREFORE, UH, BE TIME FOR A, YOU DID DO THE PARTIES ONE, UH, A CLOSING ARGUMENT? I, I DO. OKAY. WOULD FIVE MINUTES BE ENOUGH? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND MR. MARTIN, I CAN SAY EXTEND THE SAME FERRIS TO YOU, PLEASE, MR. SEIDER. OKAY. IN, IN EXHIBIT, UH, THE GRIEVANCE THAT WAS FILED, AND I WANNA JUST START WITH THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENTS ARE ASKING, AND, AND THE REMEDY SOUGHT FOR OF THE, THE GRIEVANCE THAT WAS FILED THERE. THE CURRENT ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S RANK OF LIEUTENANT POSTED CERTIFIED ON APRIL 29TH, 2024 SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL OCTOBER 29TH, 2025. THE PROMOTIONAL PROCESS FOR THE NEW LIST OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES SHOULD NOT RESULT IN THE SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE OF TWO LISTS OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES. THEREFORE, THE PROCESS, THE 2025 RELEASE, LIEUTENANT EXAMINATION SHOULD BE HALTED, OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE SCHEDULE SHOULD BE ALTERED TO ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT LISTS EXPIRATION OF OCTOBER 29TH, 25, TO AVOID THE SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE OF TWO LISTS. ANY NEW PROMOTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO OCTOBER THE 30TH, 2025. THEY'RE TRYING TO GET WHAT'S THEY'VE WORKED HARD AND THEY'VE EARNED THROUGH THE PROMOTIONAL PROCESS. AND THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY ARE THEY IN THIS BUSINESS? WHY DID THE CIVIL SERVICE DECIDE TO CUT THEIR LIST SHORT? WHY DID THEY CREATE IT, UH, A NEW LIST OR NEW PROCESS, EVEN WHEN THEY WEREN'T ANY VACANCIES? AND WE, WE'VE PROVEN THAT THERE, THERE WERE NO VACANCIES WHEN THEY STARTED THE, THE, THE PROCESS, THE 2025 PROCESS. THERE WERE NO VACANCIES. UM, SO FOR, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM TO START THE PROCESS. I THINK ARGUABLY, UH, THAT THE, THE QUESTION SHOULD BE WHY DID THEY DO THAT? YOU'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THAT'S NOT REGULARLY DONE, AND YOU'VE SEEN THE RULES, UH, THAT, THAT ARE CONTROLLING HERE, UH, THAT ADDRESS THAT. NOW, FROM TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE, EVEN FROM MR. DAVIS, THERE'S NO DISPUTE. [02:00:01] HE'S ADMITTED THAT THIS, THIS LIST, THE ONE FROM APRIL 29TH, 2024, THIS IS THE CURRENT EFFECTIVE PROMOTIONAL LIST. IT'S AN ELIGIBILITY LIST BY DEFINITION, AND IT WAS CERTIFIED TO THE, TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON APRIL 29TH, 2024. AND THE RULES, UH, RULE 4.3 ARE VERY GOOD. THAT WHAT THE LENGTH SHOULD BE, HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO BE IN EFFECT? IT HAS TO BE IN EFFECT FOR, IT SAYS NOT EXCEED 18 MONTHS, BUT IT ALSO SAYS IT MUST BE 18 MONTHS. SO THEY'RE PEGGING IT 18 MONTHS HERE. AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT, IT SAYS, UM, IT SAYS, LISTS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED AND DO NOT INCLUDE ASSESSMENT CENTERS SHALL BE IN EFFECT ONE YEAR. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROMOTIONAL LIST THAT WHERE THEY ASSESSMENT CENTERS, I THINK THAT SENIOR CORPORAL, THAT TYPE OF LIST, THEY'RE SAYING DEFINITELY ONE YEAR. AND THEN IT TELLS YOU, HOW DO YOU CALCULATE WHAT ONE YEAR IS? THEN THIS IS WHERE IT TELLS YOU CLEARLY, FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING EFFECTIVE DATES OF ELIGIBILITY LIST, EACH PERIOD BEGINS, THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY IS MADE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ENDS ON 11:59 PM ON THE FOLLOWING, 365TH OR 548TH AS APPLICABLE. SO WE'VE GOT, FROM THE TESTIMONY EVIDENCE, IT'S CLEAR THAT THAT DATE, THE DATE THAT THE LIST WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS APRIL 29TH, 2024. NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS IS BY THIS LIST, YOU KNOW, THEY WANNA MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER LIST THAT WERE ON THIS OTHER LIST ABOUT 1617, DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN ELIGIBILITY LIST. AND IT WAS POSTED ON APRIL THE 29TH, 2024, AND THE ARGUMENT THAT, WELL, UH, THEY TESTIFIED THAT, WELL, THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE ADDED TO THE LIST. SO IT DOESN'T MAKE NO SENSE WHY THIS LIST WOULD NOT THE SAME RULE THAT APPLIED TO THE PREVIOUS LIST ON CALCULATING THE DATES APPLIES TO THIS LIST. AND THE RULE TELL YOU HOW TO CALCULATE THE DATES. SO THEY SHOULD HAVE CALCULATED THE DATES BASED OFF OF APRIL 29TH, BECAUSE THIS IS THE, THE OTHER LIST IS GONE. THE LIST FROM APRIL 29TH, 2024 WAS A DIFFERENT LIST. IT'S GOT DIFFERENT PEOPLE. ALL, ALL THREE OF THE GRIEVANCE HAVE DIFFERENT SCORES. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT RANKINGS IN THE, IN, UH, ACCORDING TO THEY RANK MULTIPLE TO PROMOTE THE RANKS CHANGED, OTHER PEOPLE WERE ADDED SCORES CHANGED. SO BY THE RULES, AND BY COMMON SENSE, THIS IS A ELIGIBILITY LIST. AND YOU CALCULATE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ELIGIBILITY LIST BASED OFF OF WHAT'S THE CLEAR MEANING OF RULE FOUR, 4.3 E 548 DAY. SO THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. WE'RE ASKING THAT THAT BE CORRECTED, THAT IT BE DONE PROPERLY. WE'RE ASKING THAT AT NO TIME DO WE EVER HAVE THESE OVERLAPPING LISTS. AND THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING. THEY WANT THEIR, THEY WANT THEIR LIST, THE LIST THEY'RE ON TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE FULL TIME WITHIN THE RULES. AND THAT TURNS OUT TO BE, I THINK, 16, 17 DAYS. THAT'S ALL THEY WANT. THEY'RE ASKING THAT THE RULES BE FOLLOWED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. TYLER. MR. MARTIN. UM, SO I WOULD JUST ASK THE BOARD TO, TO PLEASE JUST READ THE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULE ITSELF, WHICH IS IN YOUR STATEMENT, PRE PRESENTED. UH, YOUR QUESTION PRESENTED, WHICH IS ABOUT WHEN THE, A THE, THE AMENDED LIST WAS PUBLISHED 17 DAYS AFTER IT WAS ESTABLISHED. WAS IT REQUIRED TO BE MOVED OUT 18 MONTHS? DOES THE RULE REQUIRE THAT MR. SNYDER SAYS IT MUST BE 18 MONTHS? SHOW ME IN THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS THAT, BECAUSE ALL I'M SEEING IS NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS. THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD IS MR. DAVIS'S TESTIMONY THAT IT CAN BE LESS THAN 18 MONTHS. THAT IS JUST THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IT WANTS TO BE. THE REMEDY THEY ARE ASKING FOR IS TO VIOLATE THE RULE AND FOR THEM TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS. I WANT THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE THAT ALL OF THESE GRIEVANCE HAVE BEEN ON THIS ELIGIBILITY LIST FOR 18 MONTHS AS OF OCTOBER 12TH. THAT'S NOT CUTTING SHORT THEIR TIME. THEY WILL HAVE BEEN ON IT FOR 18 MONTHS. WHEN IT WAS, WHEN THE LIST WAS ESTABLISHED IN APRIL 12TH, 2024. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, FIRST PAGE, THIS LIST MIGHT BE UPDATED AS MAKE UP EXAMS ARE DONE. JUST BECAUSE THE LIST IS UPDATED DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE [02:05:01] EXPIRATION DATE HAS TO BE PUSHED OUT. MR. DAVIS TESTIFIED THIS IS THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SAME EXAM. THIS IS THE SAME EXAM. EVERYBODY'S TAKEN THE SAME ASSESSMENT CENTER, AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT MIGHT BE UPDATED. HE GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT MISS MULTIPLE MONTHS OF, UH, NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE THE EXAM. SOMEBODY WAS DEPLOYED, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE IT TILL MONTHS LATER. WHAT GRIEVANCE ARE ARGUING THAT IF SOMEBODY COMES SIX MONTHS LATER AND TAKES THAT EXAM, THAT ELIGIBILITY LIST HAS TO BE PUSHED OUT SIX MONTHS JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY WAS DEPLOYED. AND THAT'S NOT IN THE RULE, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN PRACTICE. IT BASICALLY IS GONNA CREATE A SENSE, BUT THE LIST IS NEVER EXPIRES. AND MR. DAVIS TESTIFIED AS TO WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOT HAVE THESE LISTS GET STALE. NOT NOT, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BEST THE LIEUTENANT IS, IS THE MOST SENIOR, UH, POSITION IN DPD GOVERNED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND BY THESE, UH, BY THESE EXAMINATIONS. AND SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE BEST PEOPLE GET INTO THOSE POSITIONS. AND SO THE IDEA THAT THE LIST CAN JUST SORT OF BE EXTENDED INDEFINITELY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD IS ANTITHETICAL TO BOTH THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULE AND, UH, IN PRACTICE OF, OF, OF WHAT MAKES SENSE. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE VACANCY, THAT, THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD. I, I, I THINK THAT'S A NON-SEQUITUR ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD CREATE AN EXAM. BUT I WILL SAY, JUST POINT OUT THAT THE ELIGIBILITY LIST IN QUESTION THAT WAS, THAT WAS PUBLISHED ON APRIL 12TH, 2024, THAT WAS FROM A JANUARY, 2024 EXAM. THIS NEW EXAM TOOK PLACE IN JULY 20, 25, 18 MONTHS LATER. SO OF COURSE, AS THE LIST EXPIRES, THERE IS GOING TO BE NEW EXAMS IN ORDER TO DO IT. THERE ARE NO OVERLAPPING LISTS. THIS ONE IS GONNA EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 12TH. THE NEW ONE'S GONNA TAKE EFFECT ON OCTOBER 14TH. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR IS TO CREATE OVERLAPPING LISTS. SO AGAIN, I WOULD JUST ASK THE BOARD TO, TO, TO SORT OF, UH, LOOK THROUGH THE NOISE A LITTLE BIT AND JUST READ THE QUESTION PRESENTED, READ THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACTUAL RULE. AND MR. DAVIS APPROPRIATELY DETERMINED THAT, THAT HE CANNOT EXTEND THIS EXPIRATION DATE BEYOND 18 MONTHS. AND HE DIDN'T. AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE, THE GRIEVANCE HAVE BEEN ON THIS LIST FOR 18 MONTHS. THEY ARE NOT, UH, THEY ARE NOT BEING CUT SHORT. THEY'RE NOT BEING AFFECTED BY THIS. AND SO I WOULD ASK THE BOARD JUST TO UPHOLD MR. DAVIS' DETERMINATION THAT OCTOBER 12TH, 2024, OR EXCUSE ME, 2025 IS AN APPROPRIATE EXPIRATION DATE FOR THIS LIST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SNYDER. MR. MARTIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY, AND THANK YOU FOR THE WITNESSES YOU BROUGHT, BROUGHT, UH, UH, QUESTION NUMBER QUESTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMETHING. DID SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING? OH, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. OKAY. BOARD, IT'S TIME FOR US NOW TO CONSIDER, UH, THE ISSUES AT HAND. UM, EACH OF YOU SHOULD HAVE A STATEMENT OF QUESTION THAT IN THE PACKET, AND YOU WILL GO THROUGH THAT. I'M GONNA BE DELAYED, DELAYED FOR A SECOND. OKAY. IT'S, YEAH, IT'S IN THE PACKET OF MATERIAL, MATERIAL THAT WE'RE, IT'S JUST GETTING THE PACK OF MATERIALS. MM-HMM . IS THERE, JUST AS AN ASIDE, UH, JARED, IS THERE A WAY TO GET THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED BEFORE, UH, BEFORE THE MEETING CAME TO DO IT IN LIKE AN ATTACHMENT? BECAUSE I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME GETTING THROUGH THE ZIP. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE IS. YEAH. UM, UM, BOARD MEMBER GERBER, WE, WE HAD TO ZIP THE FILE JUST GIVEN THE, THE BOX, THE LUMINOUS OF IT. UM, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. WE NORMALLY TRY TO SEND IT AS AN ATTACHMENT SO YOU CAN GET TO IT MORE, MORE QUICKLY. SO APOLOGIES FOR THAT. YEAH, THANKS. YEAH, IT'S A TOUGH ONE. MY SPOUSE HAS THE TECHNOLOGICAL SKILLS TO DEAL WITH THIS. JUST LEMME KNOW. WHEN YOU GET TO THE, YOU FIND YOUR STATEMENT QUESTION. WE'RE ALL, WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. GREAT. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. TELL ME THE NAME OF THE DO DOCUMENT. IT'S CALLED STATE STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS. IS THAT IN THE PACKET? YES, IT'S IN THE PACKET. IS IT? WHERE IN THE PACKET IS IT THAT IT'S NOT NOTHING CALLED STATE. OH, HERE, TAKE IT IN THE QUESTIONS, OR DOES IT SAY STATEMENT OF [02:10:01] QUESTIONS? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? YES. YES. IT'S IN BOLD AT, AT THE TOP, UH, TOP OF THE, NEAR THE TOP OF THE PAGE. OKAY. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR US TO VOTE? WELL, WE'RE GONNA, WE'LL DELIBERATE. IT DIDN'T VOTE. OKAY, GREAT. PAM, YOUR VOICE IS TURNED OFF. I'M SORRY. I'M HERE. WHAT DO YOU NEED? DOCUSIGN? I THINK IT'S GONNA BE SEAL. WE'RE GONNA BE VOTING. MR. CHAIR, I JUST REALLY QUICK, UM, I WAS WONDERING IF EMMANUEL, IF HE HAS AT, AT HIS FINGERTIPS THE STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS, AND PERHAPS THAT CAN BE SHARED ON THE SCREEN TOO, TO GET US THERE. SEND YOU A DOCUSIGN. YEAH, I WILL DEFER TO DAN TO EMMANUEL ON THAT. HE'S LOOKING AS WE SPEAK. OKAY. JARED, ARE YOU GONNA BE LOOKING FOR US TO SIGN THAT DOCUMENT? NO. NO. OKAY. WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL CAPTURE IT, WE'LL CAPTURE IT BASED ON HOW YOU ALL VOTE. YEAH. AND I WILL ATTEST TO IT SINCE I'M DOWNTOWN AT CITY HALL. YEAH. GREAT. OKAY. IT'S ON THE SCREEN. THERE IS A STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS. IF YOU CAN EXPAND THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT. UM, OKAY. THERE IT IS, PAM. IT'S ON YOUR SCREEN NOW AND EVERYONE CAN SEE IT? YES. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS. CAN EVERYONE SEE THE STATEMENT OF QUESTION? YES. THANKS SIR. RICHARD, CAN YOU SEE IT? YES, SIR. YES. PAM, CAN YOU SEE IT? YES. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. SO WE'RE ALL, I WON'T READ IT THEN, BUT THE, THE, THE QUESTION FOR US TO ANSWER TODAY IS, DID CECIL CHAMBERS, PRINCE PRINCESS DIGGIN AND RICKY SCOTT OF THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT MISINTERPRETED OR VIOLATED ABOVE STATED RULE, UH, WHICH IS RULE FOUR, 4.30, UM, WHEN IT PROVIDED AN UPDATED LIST OF POLICE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL SCORES WITH AN EXPIRATION DATE OF OCTOBER 12TH, 2025, WHICH WAS LESS THAN 18 MONTHS, AND THE DATE OF THE UPDATED POSTING, IF I, I'M HAPPY TO START OFF, IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO START OFF. UH, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO LET YOU DO SO. UM, LET ME, LET ME TELL YOU JUST MY OVERALL IMPRESSIONS THAT, THAT, UH, IF WE GO WITH WHAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE REQUESTED, THE GRIEVANCE HAVE REQUESTED, THEN WE WILL EXTEND THE LIST IN EXCESS OF 18 MONTHS. PEOPLE WERE, WOULD, WOULD'VE BEEN PUT ON THE LIST ON APRIL 12TH, 2024, AND THE LIST WOULD NOW GO TO OCTOBER 29TH, 2025 WOULD BE AN EXIT TO 18 MONTHS. UM, TO ME, THE KEY, THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE IN THE RULE YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE RULE IS, UH, ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN. UM, LET THE EXACT WORDING THAT THE, UH, WHERE AN ELIGIBILITY ELIGIBILITY LIST SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE LIST IS ESTABLISHED OR EXHAUSTED. I THINK THE KEY IS WHEN THE DATE THE LIST IS ESTABLISHED, UH, WHEN THE, WITH THE APRIL 12TH, 2024 POSTING OF, EXCUSE ME, POSTING OF THE FINAL SCORES, THE EXPERT, IT WAS, IT WAS NOTED, THE EXPIRATION DATE WAS OCTOBER 12TH, 2025. ON THAT POSTING ON, ON, UH, APRIL 12TH, THERE WAS ALSO THE NOTICE THAT BECAUSE OF F-M-L-A-A TEMPORARY MILITARY SERVICE, SOMEONE BEING DEPLOYED OR UNDER F UH, OR, UM, OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT OTHER, UH, OTHER, UH, OTHER NAMES, OTHER INDIVIDUALS MAY BE ADDED TO THE LIST. AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THAT UNDER FEDERAL LAW. SO, SO ON THE OCTOBER 29TH POSTING, THAT STILL SHOWS THE EXPIRATION DATE OF OCTOBER 12TH, 2025. TO ME, THAT IS THE DATE THE LIST IS ESTABLISHED. THE, THE, THE LIST IS ESTABLISHED AS OF APRIL 12TH, AND THE EXPIRATION DATE IS NOTED, UH, ON, ON THAT, ON, ON THAT DOCUMENT THAT REMAINED THE SAME WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY DID THE UPDATE. I, I AGREE WITH MR. MARTIN'S ASSESSMENT THAT EVERY TIME WE ADD SOMEBODY TO THE LIST AND WE START EXTENDING 18 MONTHS FROM [02:15:01] THAT DATE MM-HMM . THAT THIS WOULD BE A LIST THAT GOES ON AND ON, JUST BASED ON WHO'S THE LAST PERSON WHO TOOK, TOOK, WHO WAS DEPLOYED OVERSEAS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THREE MONTHS OR FOUR MONTHS, AND CAME HOME AND GO, WELL, WE'RE GONNA ADD ANOTHER FOUR MONTHS TO THE, FOR THE LIST. THEN THAT, UH, THE 18, THE, THE 18 MONTH RULE BECOMES JUST, IT DOESN'T BECOME A RULE ANYMORE. THE RULE WAS, UH, CHOCK FULL OF EXCEPTIONS. UH, I ALSO AGREE THAT THE LANGUAGE DOES SAY NOT TO EXCEED 18 MONTHS. I, IT ALSO SPECIFICALLY DOES STATE THAT, AND I THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TODAY THAT, THAT AREN'T REALLY RELEVANT. THE, THE EXISTING LISTS AND, AND WHAT'S, WHAT'S, WHAT WILL BE GOING ON THIS YEAR, ET CETERA. AGAIN, THE, THE ONE THING TO ME IS THAT THE DATE THE LIST IS ESTABLISHED, AND AGAIN, THE, THE INITIAL, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APRIL 12TH POSTING GIVES AT 18 MONTHS, AND THAT GETS TO OCTOBER 12TH, 2025. THE FACT THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE ADDED TO THE LIST, PEOPLE ARE NOTIFIED OF THAT. UH, AND THE, THE APRIL 12TH, 2024 POST EVEN SAYS THAT, THAT THE, THE SCORES, THE RANKINGS MAY CHANGE AS OFFICE RETURN FROM FFLA, TEMPORARY MILITARY SERVICE, ET CETERA. SO FOR ME, UM, I I AM, I'M VOTING NO, THAT THAT WAS, THEY DID NOT PROVIDE, UH, UH, ESTABLISHED BY PROP PRODUCT EVIDENCE THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT MISINTERPRETED OR VIOLATED THE RULE IN QUESTION. SO THAT, THAT, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I'LL BE HAPPY TO, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS, DISCUSS AND ARGUE OR WHATEVER WE MAY NEED TO DO. I, I HAVE A CONCERN. I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, THE LIST, THE CALL FOR A LIST ON, UH, ON FLOOR THAT RESTS WITH THE DEPARTMENT. AND SO THE DECISION TO CALL FOR A LIST WAS MADE BY THE CURRENT CHIEF, AM I, I I'M SORRY. WHICH, WHICH ONE? I, I IN 20 IN, UH, WHO, WHO CALLED, WHO CALLED FOR A, A NEW LIST, IN ESSENCE, W WHEN THE ONE, THE ONE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WITH THESE THREE GRIEVANCE, OR THE ONE, THE NEW LIST THAT WILL BE COMING, THE OUT THE NEW LIST, THE HAVE BE COMING OUT, I THINK WAS REQUESTED BY CHIEF OMO. UM, I, I DON'T WANNA OVERSTEP, BUT THAT'S, THE COURT REPORTER COULD TELL YOU, UH, WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS. SO I CAN TELL YOU IF YOU WANT ME TO, MR. IT WASN'T, EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY. REPEAT THAT MR. SCHNEIDER. SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. GO, GO AHEAD, JOHN. YEAH, YOU CAN CLEAR IT, CLEAR IT UP. I DON'T WANNA INTERFERE WITH ANYTHING BUT IT CORRECT THE TESTIMONY. YEAH. SO LET, LET ME, LET ME INTERRUPT HERE. THIS IS, THIS IS THE, THE BOARD'S DELIBERATION AT THIS POINT. I UNDERSTAND. SO, UM, AND, AND IF, IF, IF I'M MISTAKEN ABOUT, BUT MR. PIERRE, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. YES. THE, THE HONEST RISK WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO CALL FOR A LIST, AND THERE WAS A, IF THERE WAS AN EXISTING LIST AND AN AMENDED LIST, UH, DID THE DEPARTMENT REQUEST A NEW LIST OR I, I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHO DID, WHEN, WHEN THE APRIL 12TH, 2024 LISTING WAS POSTED, IT INCLUDED THE LANGUAGE THAT THERE MAY BE ADDITIONS TO THE LIST BECAUSE OF, OF FMLA OR PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY, WHATEVER. AND WHAT CAME OUT IN, ON APRIL 29TH WERE, WAS THE ADDITION OF SOME ADDITIONAL NAMES TO THE LIST. SO, SO TO ME, THAT IS NOT A NEW LIST COMING OUT. THAT IS, THAT IS AN UPDATED LIST AND, AND, AND, AND THAT EVERYBODY'S ON NOTICE THAT UNDER, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WE, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THOSE PEOPLE TO TEST. SO THAT, THAT IS, TO ME, THAT'S THE SAME LIST. I MEAN, YES, THEY DID UPDATE IT, BUT, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE REQUIRED TO, TO, AND, AND, AND THEY TELL PEOPLE BECAUSE OF FMLA, TEMPORARY MILITARY UTIL MILITARY SERVICE, ET CETERA, THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONS TO THAT LIST. AND APRIL 29TH WAS THE ADDITIONS TO THE LIST. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THANKS, MS. BEER, MS. MITCHELL. MS. GERBER, RIGHT HERE. [02:20:01] ANY DISCUSSION? THERE'S, THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, UH, WITH ME. UM, I WAS JUST, AS MR. PIERRE, I WAS TRYING TO GET ALSO THAT CLARITY THAT IT WAS NOT TO LIST, THERE WAS AN ADDITION TO THE ORIGINAL LIST. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, I DON'T SEE WHERE ANYONE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE WHERE THE, UM, THE BOARD, THE CIVIL SERVICE VIOLATED ANY OF THE, UM, THE RULES IN THAT SECTION. 4.4 0.4, WHAT IS IT? 4.3? 4.3. THIS IS OUR DELIBERATION. SO THAT MS. MITCHELL, MR. PIERRE AND I, I THINK THE THREE OF US WOULD BE VOTING NO, THAT THERE WAS NO MISINTERPRETATION. I'M VIOLATION. YES. I'M VOTING, NO. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT MR. PIERRE, THAT'S SAME. YOU, THAT'S, THAT'S MY CASE. I'M MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE THERE. MS. GERBER? YEAH. I VOTE NO. OKAY. OKAY. SO, UH, WE HAVE FOUR VOTES. NO, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THE MATTER THEN. UM, WHAT, I'LL ASK, WHAT I'LL ASK, UM, EMMANUEL, IF YOU DO, YOU CAN PREPARE A DOCUMENT WITH THIS, BUT JUST PRINT IN THE NAMES AND THEN I WILL TEST IT LATER ON BEFORE I, I LEAVE HERE TODAY. SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING TODAY. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE IT, ADA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME. BYE-BYE. THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY. YOU TOO. BYE-BYE. UM, AGAIN, THE ONLY ACTION ITEMS WE HAD WAS THAT WE'RE TAKING ACTIONS FROM THE, THE MEETING FROM THE GRIEVANCE TODAY. CAN YOU TAKE YOUR, YOUR SLIDE DOWN? CAN YOU TAKE YOUR SLIDE DOWN SO WE CAN SEE EVERYBODY? THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE HAVE NO OTHER MR. CHAIRMAN? YEAH, WE'RE STILL, WE'RE STILL IN THE RECORD TAKING ON MY PART BECAUSE Y'ALL HAVE, HAVE YOU, BUT YOU DID VOTE. SO. AM I DONE, JARED? YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE DONE. I THINK WE HAVE, WE HAVE FOUR NO VOTES. I THINK YOU'RE ALL DONE, LESLIE. YEAH, YOU'RE OFF THE RECORD. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD SEEING YOU. I TALK TO SEE YOU. BYE-BYE. UM, AGAIN, ON OUR, ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, WE HAVE NO OTHER ACTION ITEMS ON, ON OUR AGENDA TODAY OR NO BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION. I THINK WE HELD OFF ON BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ITEMS BECAUSE OF THE GRIEVANCE, UH, HEARING TODAY. SO ANYWAY, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR THE DAY AND, UH, WE WILL BE MEETING, IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IT WILL BE THE FIRST TUESDAY IN OCTOBER, WHICH WILL BE HERE BEFORE YOU KNOW IT. HMM. AND, UM, SO I HAVE THE TIME AT 12:17 PM AND WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR THE DAY. SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR COMING. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TAKE CARE. BYE-BYE. BYE. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.