[00:00:01]
SORRY FOR THE DELAY OF[Civil Service on November 4, 2025.]
THE TECHNICAL ISSUES.I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
UH, AND, UH, I HOPE EVERYONE, IF WE HAVE ANY ISSUES, WE'LL, UH, WE'LL ADDRESS IT.
TODAY IS NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025, AND IT'S NOW 9:51 AM AND WE ARE STARTING THE, OUR REGULAR BOARD MEETING.
UM, MR. DAVIS, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS, AND I'M SORRY IF I KEEP LOOKING AT THE SIDE, IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S THE SCREEN CLOSEST TO ME.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF, MR. CHAIR? I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS THIS MORNING.
SO THAT TAKES US TO ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025 SPECIAL CALL, CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING.
AND THOSE WERE INCLUDING YOUR PACKET.
UH, EVERYONE I HOPE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM.
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS THAT YOU BELIEVE ARE NECESSARY TO THOSE MINUTES? HEARING NONE, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025, UH, SPECIAL CALL TO CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING.
MR. PIERRE, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY, AYE.
UH, THIS MORNING WE HAVE TWO HEARINGS.
UM, AND, UM, THEY BOTH RELATE TO THE SAME, UH, ALLEGED RULE VIOLATION RULE 4.3.
UM, SO WE, UH, UNLESS I HEAR DIFFERENTLY, WE'RE GOING TO DO TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS TODAY, UNLESS THERE'S ANY AGREEMENT BY THE PARTIES TO, TO, UH, CONSOLIDATE THIS INTO ONE.
UM, IS THERE ANY SUCH DESIRED, AREN'T THEY ALL CHARGING THE SAME? AREN'T THEY ALL SUGGESTING THE SAME THING? YES.
YES, BUT THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF ATTORNEYS, SO WE'RE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH TWO HEARINGS.
I THINK IT'LL BE SOME REPETITIVE, UH, INFORMATION, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
UH, THE FIRST IS CONDUCT A GRIEVANCE APPEAL HEARING OF CRYSTAL MARTINEZ, IN WHICH SHE CLAIMS THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATED CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CIVIL RULE, FOREIGN SERVICE CERTIFICATION, PROMOTIONS, THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUBSECTION B, COMPLETION OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
AND, UH, WHAT I WANNA DO, I THINK THE FIRST ONE IS WITH, UH, OBVIOUSLY WITH MR. UH, MR. PEACOCK FOR THE CITY, AND MR. CASE, I BELIEVE FOR MS. AND I, MR. UH, PEACOCK, I'VE SEEN YOU ON SCREEN.
MR. CASEY, ARE YOU ON SCREEN? I SHOULD BE.
CAN OTHERS SEE HIM? I CAN'T SEE HIM, BUT THERE HE IS.
UH, THIS WILL BE A, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN INFORMAL PROCESS.
UH, I'D LIKE TO ASK IF, UH, THE CITY AND MR. CASEY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE BRIEF OPENING STATEMENTS.
IF, IF YOU DON'T WISH TO, WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO THE CITY CALLING HIS FIRST WITNESS.
UH, MR. PEACOCK, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT? UH, I DO MR. CHAIR, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE G WOULD'VE THE BURDEN IN THIS MATTER, SO I BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD GO FIRST.
I, I, I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.
UM, THE CITY IS READY TO PROCEED WITH AN OPENING STATEMENT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE GRIEVANT HOLDS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A GRIEVANCE HEARING.
SO I BELIEVE THEY WOULD GO FIRST.
MR. CASEY, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF OPENING YOUR STATEMENT? UH, YES, BUT THE CHAIRMAN, VERY BRIEFLY, UH, CRYSTAL COR, UH, WAS PROMOTED TO SERGEANT, AND SHE WILL TESTIFY TO THIS AROUND MARCH 3RD, 2021.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINERS AT ISSUE HERE TODAY, UH, WAS POSTED EARLIER IN THE SUMMER WITH A, UH, SOMEBODY MUTE.
MAY I ASK IF, IF EVERYBODY MUTE? THAT'S NOT SPEAKING.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CROSS NOISE GOING ON.
UH, THE LIEUTENANT'S EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS SCHEDULED, UH, I BELIEVE IN JULY TO BE THE WRITTEN PORTION OF THE EXAM.
THERE'S ALSO AN ASSESSMENT PORTION OF THE EXAMINATION THAT WAS SCHEDULED
[00:05:01]
FOR SE TO BEGIN ON SEPTEMBER 15TH.THERE IS A RULE, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS A CIVIL SERVICE RULE STATING THAT, UH, TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE LIEUTENANT'S EXAMINATION, THE OFFICERS, THE SERGEANTS THAT ARE TESTING FOR THIS WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, MUST HIT THEIR FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
IN OTHER WORDS, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EXAM IS ADMINISTERED, THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE BEEN A SERGEANT WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR FIVE YEARS.
UM, IT'S, THE LANGUAGE IS VERY CLEAR.
UH, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN PRACTICING.
HOWEVER, THE CITY IS IN INTERPRETING THIS RULE, REGARDLESS OF THE WORD FOLLOWING, TO MEAN THAT THIS SIX MONTHS PERIOD, UH, IS CALCULATED FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE WRITTEN EXAM.
IN OTHER WORDS, AT THE BEGINNING OF IT, WHICH JUST DEFINITIVELY DOESN'T, DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, AND IS NOT HOW THE RULE IS WRITTEN.
UH, EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AND, AND, UH, SERGEANT CORT WILL TESTIFY TO THE FACT THAT, UH, HER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR BEING A SERGEANT WILL HAVE BEEN MET ON OR AROUND MARCH THE THIRD OF 2026.
UH, THAT'S ACTUALLY LESS THAN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAM, WHICH AGAIN, CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS.
UM, AND SO THE, THE BRIEF ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT THE CITY HAS MISINTERPRETED THIS RULE.
UH, THEY'VE MISINTERPRETED THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE RULE.
UH, IT HAS RESULTED IN INEQUITABLE ACTION ON, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
UH, AND AT THE END OF THIS, UH, SERGEANT CORT IS GONNA ASK THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, UH, ORDER THAT THE CITY INTERPRET THIS RULE IN THE CORRECT WAY, UH, AND ALLOW MS. CORT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT FOR BOTH THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND THE ASSESSMENT PORTION OF THE OVERALL EXAM.
MR. PEACOCK? YES, MR. CHAIR, SHALL I PROCEED? MAY I PLEASE THE COURT OPPOSING COUNSEL? MY NAME IS JAMES PEACOCK, AND I REPRESENT THE CITY.
IN TODAY'S HEARING, THE POSITION OF THE CITY IS THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD FIND AGAINST THE GRIEVANCE AND AGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR JARED DAVIS.
THIS IS BECAUSE THIS CASE IS ABOUT PUTTING CONSISTENCY OVER CHAOS.
NOW, AS MY OPPOSING COUNSEL MENTIONED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF RULE 4.3 OCCURRED WHEN SERGEANT PARTINA WAS TOLD THAT SHE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR LIEUTENANT'S EXAMINATION.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE EXAMINATION WAS SET TO BEGIN ON JULY THE EIGHTH, 2025, AND SHE WOULD NOT COMPLETE THE REQUISITE FIVE YEAR REQUIREMENT, UH, AS A SERGEANT TO PROMOTE TO LOUISIANA UNTIL MARCH OF 2026, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE SIX MONTH TIMEFRAME.
NOW, WHAT YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES OVER THE COURSE OF TODAY IS THAT THIS IS IN LINE WITH CIVIL SERVICE PROCEDURE.
AND AS YOU WILL HEAR TODAY, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED.
NOW, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED IN TWO DISTINCT MANNERS.
THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THAT THIS EXAMINATION IS IN TWO DIFFERENT PARTS, BUT IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE ONE EXAM.
YOU CANNOT START WITH PART TWO, AND YOU CANNOT TAKE PART TWO UNLESS YOU SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE PART ONE.
AND A COMBINED SCORE, WHICH GOES ON TO THE ELIGIBILITY LIST, UM, A COMBINED SCORE IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY PUT ON THERE, NOT, UH, SIMPLY THE ASSESSMENT SCORE.
THE OTHER, THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HERE IS THAT THIS EXAM MAY BE OFFERED TO THOSE WHO RETURN FROM FMLA OR FROM MILITARY LEAVE AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.
UH, AND SO CONSISTENT WITH IN, IN A WAY OF MAKE THIS CONSISTENT, WE CALCULATE BASED ON THE INITIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAM THAT WAS CALLED, IN THIS CASE, THAT WOULD BE ON JULY THE EIGHTH OF 2025.
NOW, WHY DO WE DO THOSE TWO? THOSE TWO THINGS? IT'S SIMPLE.
YOU MUST DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.
YOU MUST DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.
NOW, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT METAPHORS FOR THIS, BUT, UH, THE TWO THAT I THINK ARE THE, ARE THE EASIEST TO, TO, UH, GRAPPLE INTO THIS SITUATION.
UH, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS, IS WHENEVER WE SEND OUR KIDS TO SCHOOL, THEY HAVE TO DRAW A LINE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ELIGIBLE TO ENROLL SOMEWHERE.
NOW, TYPICALLY, AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND, THIS MEANS THAT KIDS THAT ARE BORN IN THE WINTER TEND TO BE OLDER THAN THE KIDS WHO ARE BORN IN, IN THE SUMMER, WHO TEND TO BE THE YOUNGER OF THE CLASS.
IS THAT ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE, TO THE YOUNGER KIDS OR TO THE OLDER KIDS? WHO'S TO SAY? BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT IT'S CONSISTENTLY APPLIED.
I KNOW THERE ARE SOME LAWYERS ON, ON THE BOARD AS WELL, THE WAY THAT WE CALCULATE OUR CLES.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE THEIR CLES.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE ALMOST THREE YEARS TO LEAVE THEIR PLES FAIR, WHO'S TO SAY? BUT CONSISTENT, THE FAIRNESS COMES FROM THE CONSISTENCY ITSELF.
IF THESE THINGS ARE CONSISTENTLY
[00:10:01]
APPLIED, THEY ARE DONE FAIRLY.WHAT THE OPPOSING SIDE IS TRYING TO DO IS INSERT CHAOS INTO THAT CONSISTENCY.
THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO UNOR THE DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATION TO BE THE EXAMINATION OF THE INITIAL EXAMINATION ITSELF, AND ALLOW IT TO JUST BE PLACED WHENEVER THERE IS SOME SORT OF EXA PART OF THE EXAMINATION BEING DONE, THAT'S GOING TO HARM A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN IT'LL, FIRST OF WHICH IT WILL HARM THOSE WHO WAITED THEIR TURN AND ACTUALLY WAITED FOR THEIR FULL FIVE YEARS TO, TO TAKE THE EXAM.
IT WILL HURT THOSE WHO'VE ALREADY TAKEN THIS EXAM AND THAT PEOPLE THAT SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXAM BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, WILL BE TAKING THAT EXAM.
AND LASTLY, AND I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WILL OPEN UP A PANDORA'S BOX AS TO WHEN AN ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAM ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE.
ALL THAT WILL DO IS THREATEN THE VERY NATURE OF OUR 18 MONTH PROCESS, UH, AS WELL AS CALL INTO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE MULTIPLE LISTS THAT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME.
AND LASTLY, IT'LL HARM THOSE IN THE FUTURE WHO SIGN UP BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN THE ACTUAL ELIGIBILITY WILL BEGIN OR END.
WE DO THINGS CONSISTENTLY AROUND HERE.
WE ASK THAT YOU ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS CONSISTENTLY AND NOT INJECT CHAOS ON SOME OF THE SYSTEM.
WE ASK THAT YOU FIND AGAINST AGREEMENT IN THIS MATTER TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY THAT OUR CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM NEEDS.
UH, MR. CASEY, ARE YOU READY TO GO FORWARD WITH YOUR FIRST WITNESS? UH, YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL CRYSTAL COR.
AND I'M GONNA ASK IF WE COULD HAVE THE COURT REPORTER SWEAR IN MS. MARTINEZ.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN CAN HEAR YOU FINE.
MR. COR, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE, IS THE COURT, IS LESLIE HERE? HEAR ME? OKAY.
MS. COR, OR WHAT IS YOUR RANK MA'AM? SERGEANT WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? SHE SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT CHOPPY.
CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU FINE.
I NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE HER, TO HER TO SWEAR HER IN.
WELL, I SEE HER NAME, BUT THERE'S NO IMAGE.
UH, I GUESS I WENT, I, THIS IS, I WENT TO THE STACK LAYOUT SO THAT SHE WASN'T ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BOTTOM.
AND I SEE HER AT THE TOP NEXT TO JAMES.
MA'AM, CAN YOU SEE ME? I'M WAVING TO THE CAMERA.
SHE HAS, THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE WITH THE COURT REPORTER'S CAMERA.
'CAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY ELSE IS ABLE TO SEE ME
YEAH, I SEE EVERYBODY BUT YOU.
IS SHE SHARING A CAMERA WITH THE CHAIR? NO.
OR SOMETHING? YEAH, SHE, RIGHT.
WHEN YOU LOOK ON YOUR SCREEN, DO YOU SEE AN OPTION FOR VIEW AND LAYOUT? LIKE, YEAH.
IS THERE A, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR VIEW TO PERHAPS STACK OR A GRID OR, YEAH, I'VE, I'VE, OH, OKAY.
WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, MA'AM.
DID MR. CASEY PLEASE PROCEED? THANK YOU.
UH, MR. CORTEZ, CAN YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND RANK FOR THE RECORD? MY NAME IS CRYSTAL MARTINEZ.
I'M A SERGEANT FROM THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND WHEN WERE YOU FIRST HIRED WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT? JULY OF 2004.
WHAT DATE DID YOU, UH, WELL, LET ME GO BACK AND ASK THIS.
SO YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH, YOU'RE A SERGEANT NOW, SO YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMS TO GET WHERE YOU ARE NOW? CORRECT.
SO YOU'RE FAMILIAR, SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS? YES, SIR.
UH, WHAT DATE DID YOU ULTIMATELY PROMOTE TO SERGEANT? MARCH 3RD? 2021.
[00:15:02]
BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND.AT SOME POINT, AND IT'S NOT DATED PROPERLY, BUT THE, THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION FOR THE POSITION OF LIEUTENANT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHEN THAT WAS POSTED? APRIL 9TH.
APRIL THE NINTH OF 2025? YES, SIR.
UH, AND THIS, THIS ANNOUNCEMENT MENTIONED CERTAIN CIVIL SERVICE RULES, UH, AS IT PERTAINED TO ELIGIBILITY TO SIT, TO TAKE THE EXAM, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
DID YOU APPLY TO TEST FOR THIS EXAM? YES, SIR, I DID.
AND WHAT HAPPENED? I WAS DENIED.
WHO INFORMED YOU THAT YOU WERE DENIED? IT WAS A CITY EMPLOYEE BY THE NAME OF MR. TORRES HERE.
AND DO YOU REMEMBER THE REASON THAT YOU WERE GIVEN? LET'S SEE, BECAUSE OF MY TIME AND MY CURRENT RANK.
UH, DID IT SPECIFICALLY HAVE TO DO WITH THIS SIXTH MONTH ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE FIVE YEARS AS A SERGEANT, YOU KNOW, WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE EXAM? DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? IT IT WASN'T DETAILED LIKE THAT.
THE FIRST LETTER WAS NOT, NO, IT WAS IN AN EMAIL.
I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A CITY EMPLOYEE THAT JUST DENIED ME TO BE ABLE TO EVEN TAKE THE EXAM, WHICH IS WHEN I, MYSELF AND LIEUTENANT FRED MES WANTED TO MEET WITH, UM, MR. JARED DAVIS, WHO'S THE DIRECTOR.
SO YOU WEREN'T EVEN TOLD AT THAT TIME, SPECIFICALLY HOW YOU WERE ELIGIBLE, JUST THAT YOU WEREN'T ELIGIBLE.
UH, SO YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU AND LIEUTENANT SPEARS WANTED TO MEET WITH JARED DAVIS.
HOW, HOW DID YOU INFORM MR. DAVIS OF THAT REQUEST OR THAT DESIRE TO HAVE THAT MEETING RATHER? SO I ACTUALLY EMAILED SOMEONE AND IT WAS THE CORRECT, THE INCORRECT PERSON WHO WAS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY.
SO MR. DAVIS REACHED OUT TO ME VIA EMAIL AND SAID THAT SHE NO LONGER WORKED FOR THE CITY.
AND, UM, HE TOLD ME IN AN EMAIL, LET'S SEE HERE, THAT DUE TO THE HISTORICAL STANDING, IT WAS, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN INTERPRETED A CERTAIN WAY WITH THE CITY.
AND HE WAS CC'D ON THE EMAIL, I'M SORRY, THAT HE, THAT I ORIGINALLY SENT TO MS. MANZA, WHO'S NO LONGER ON THE DEPARTMENT, AND I ASKED IF WE COULD MEET IN PERSON.
AND I BELIEVE HE RESPONDED A MONTH LATER WHEN I ASKED FOR A FOLLOW UP AND UPDATE.
AND AT THAT TIME, MY, MYSELF AND LIEUTENANT MEERS CAME TO CITY HALL AND IT WAS AN OPEN FORUM.
I HAD A TWO MINUTES, WAS VERY BRIEF TO SPEAK, AND AT THAT POINT, MR. DAVIS ASKED IF HE COULD MEET, UH, ONE-ON-ONE WITH MYSELF AND LIEUTENANT FRED MES, WHICH WE DID, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ON JUNE 23RD IN PERSON AT CITY HALL.
AND DURING THAT TIME, I, UM, I TOLD HIM, YEAH, YEAH, I TOLD HIM THAT WE WOULD, UM, WHAT, WHAT MY ISSUE WAS AND THAT HOW I WAS DENIED.
AND HE EXPLAINED TO ME, UM, THE LONGSTANDING ROLE WITH THE CITY.
AND I HAD A PACKET PRESENTED TO HIM, WHICH EXPLAINED THAT I WAS THE GRIEVANCE AND EXPLAINED THAT THE REMEDY FOR THIS WOULD BE TO ALLOW MYSELF AND THE OTHER 40, 43 CANDIDATES, WHICH WERE SERGEANTS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE EXAM.
AND AT THAT POINT HE SAID, YOU KNOW, IF I ALLOWED YOU TO TAKE THE EXAM, I WOULD WANNA BE FAIR AND ALLOW YOU TIME TO TAKE THE EXAM, BUT IT WOULD BE ON A MAKEUP DAY IF I ALLOWED YOU TO.
UM, HE'S NEVER SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT HE WOULD, I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
UM, HE SAID IT WOULD BE ON A MAKEUP DAY, SUCH AS, UH, WITH THE MILITARY.
SO WHEN I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE OTHER CANDIDATES, HE SAID THOSE OTHER CANDIDATES WEREN'T THE GT THAT ONLY I WAS.
AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT IN MY PACKET, I EXPLAINED THAT ALL ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE EXAM.
HE SAID THAT WAS AN OPEN STATEMENT AND THAT THOSE SPECIFIC PEOPLE'S NAMES WERE NOT TYPED.
AND I ASKED HIM IF I WOULD BE ABLE TO RESUBMIT MY PAPERWORK SO I COULD SPECIFICALLY TYPE ALL THOSE NAMES.
AND HE SAID HE WOULD LET ME KNOW HIS RESPONSE, WHICH WITHIN A WEEK, MR. EMANUEL CASTELLANO, UM, UH, BASICALLY WAS DENIED AND SAID THAT I COULD APPEAL HIS DECISION, WHICH I DID.
AND MY, MY FIRST MEETING WAS INITIALLY IN OCTOBER, NOW IT'S TODAY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THE EXAM DUE TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WAS PUT OUT WHEN I APPLIED.
I WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF THE SIX MONTH RULE.
SO THE WRITTEN EXAM WAS, WAS ADMINISTERED ON JULY 8TH.
SO SIX MONTHS FROM THAT DATE US TO JANUARY, WHICH I WOULD NOT HAVE FALLEN
[00:20:01]
IN THAT BRACKET.HOWEVER, THE SECOND PART OF THE EXAM, WHICH IS THE ASSESSMENT WAS ADMINISTERED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, WHICH WAS A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER.
THE ASSESSMENT IS 65% OF THE SCORE.
THE WRITTEN EXAM IS 35% OF THE SCORE.
YOU NEED THOSE SCORES COMBINED CORRECT.
TO BE ABLE TO PROMOTE TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANTS.
HOWEVER, WHEN THAT EXAM IS COMPLETED, WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED, THE SIX MONTHS SHOULD BEGIN FROM THAT POINT, WHICH WOULD TAKE US TO MARCH 15TH, 2026, WHICH I WOULD BE WITHIN THE, THE GUIDELINE WITHIN THE, THE ELIGIBILITY TIME, WHICH I WOULD MAKE BY 12 DAYS.
NOW I JUST WANNA READ THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBILITY LIST IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, WHICH READS MEANS A LIST OF APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WHO MEET A POSITION'S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION.
OR YOU WON'T SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE IT UNTIL YOU FINISH THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS IN SEPTEMBER.
AND THEN THE DEFINITION OF EXAMINATION READS MEANS A TEST OR ASSESSMENT DESIGNED TO EVALUATE THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF APPLICANT'S TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE PARTICULAR POSITION THEY SEEK TO FILL.
SO THERE, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT IT'S A TEST OR ASSESSMENT, WHICH EQUALS EXAM.
AND THE EXAM'S NOT COMPLETED UNTIL EVERYTHING IS DONE, WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE IN SEPTEMBER, SIX MONTHS AFTER THAT.
LEMME STOP YOU, LEMME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE FOR A SECOND BECAUSE I WANNA ASK YOU ABOUT THIS.
UH, YOU SAID THE EXAMINATION, UH, AND I BELIEVE MR. PEACOCK IN HIS OPENING ALSO STATED THIS EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WITHOUT EACH PART, THERE'S NO EXAMINATION.
IS THAT, IS THAT HOW IT'S WORKING? YES, SIR.
UH, THESE ARE THE EXHIBITS THAT THE CITY, UM, SUBMITTED.
UH, WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON THAT YET, BUT I HAVE NO OBJECTION.
AND, UH, IF MR. PEACOCK DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION, I'D LIKE TO ADMIT EVERY EXHIBIT THAT THE CITY, UH, PROPOSED YES, SIR.
DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY, BUT, UM, I APPRECIATE IT.
IF YOU'LL TURN, UH, IN THAT PACKET THERE IS THE, THE ACTUAL MENT FOR PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.
DO YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU? I DO, YES, SIR.
IS THE EXHIBIT THE ONE THAT YOU, DO YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION? WHAT PAGE IS THAT? UH, THAT'S GONNA BE EXHIBIT PAGE EIGHT.
AM I GOOD TO CONTINUE OR? I THINK MADAM BOARD SHOULD LOOK AT THE EXACT PAGE.
YOU'RE PLEASE PROCEED, MR. CASEY.
QUICK QUESTION, IS THAT THE ONE THAT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, IT SAYS IT'S GOT A LOGO AND THEN SAYS CIVIL SERVICE ANNOUNCES A PROMOTIONAL EXAM? THAT IS CORRECT.
OKAY, SERGEANT COR, UH, UNDER THE HEADING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION, UH, THERE IS A, UH, WELL TECHNICALLY, I GUESS TWO PARAGRAPHS, UM, THE PARAGRAPH THAT STARTS WITH LANGUAGE, THOSE CANDIDATES, DO YOU SEE THAT ONE? YES, SIR.
CAN YOU READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT PARAGRAPH IN ITS ENTIRETY? SEE CANDIDATES? I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE CORRECT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST PAGE OF IT, RIGHT? WHERE IT SAYS THOSE CANDIDATES WHO WILL MEET THESE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA? YES, SIR.
THOSE CANDIDATES WHO WILL MEET THESE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION EXAMINATION
[00:25:01]
MAY COMPETE ON THE EXAMINATION, BUT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION UNTIL THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION.YEAH, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
YOU READ THE WORDS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION AND YOU TESTIFIED YES OR NO, THAT EX THE EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UH, AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE PHRASE FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS TO YOU? HOW DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? RATHER, WHEN YOU READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT? WHEN THE EXAM IS COMPLETE, WHICH IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL THE ASSESSMENT IS DONE, WHICH WAS IN SEPTEMBER.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT, IN OTHER WORDS, IT HADN'T BEEN ADMINISTERED UNTIL BOTH PARTS HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED SINCE BOTH PARTS COMPRISED OF THE EXAMINATION.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, SIR.
UH, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CITY TOLD YOU? NO, SIR.
SO YOU, YOU WERE TOLD THAT THE SIX MONTHS, I MEAN YES OR NO, THAT THE SIX MONTHS WAS CALCULATED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WRITTEN PORTION? YES.
PER, PER MR. DAVIS, UH, I JUST WANNA GET YOUR OPINION ON THE DEFINITION OF WORDS, JUST THE BASIC DEFINITION OF WORDS.
UM, DOES FOLLOWING AND THE WORD BEFORE MEAN THE SAME THING? NO.
WHAT DATE, UH, WOULD YOU HAVE MET OR WILL YOU, BECAUSE YOU STILL WILL, UH, WHAT DATE WILL YOU MEET THAT FIVE YEAR MARK AS, UH, IN TERMS OF HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN A SERGEANT WITH DPD? YES, SIR.
WHAT DATE WAS THE ASSESSMENT PORTION OF THE EXAMINATION, UH, ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED? IT STARTED SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025, AND IT WAS SET TO BE THAT WEEK, SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHAT, A COUPLE OF DAYS LONG.
SO AT THE VERY EARLIEST, IT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, AT THE VERY EARLIEST IT WOULD'VE BEEN SEPTEMBER 15TH AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN COMPLETED? YES, SIR.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT SAYS SEPTEMBER 15TH TO THE 19TH.
IT'S ON, IT'S ON PAGE THREE OF THE ACTUAL ANNOUNCEMENT, STRICT AS POSSIBLE.
SO BEING AS STRICT AS POSSIBLE WITH THAT SIX MONTHS, UH, THE VERY, VERY EARLIEST WOULD'VE BEEN SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND HOW MANY DAYS AFTER MARCH? THE THIRD? I'M SORRY, IT WOULD'VE BEEN MARCH, EXCUSE ME.
HOW MANY DAYS AFTER MARCH THE THIRD, 20, 20 16 OR 2026.
SO YOU WOULD'VE MET THE SIX MONTH REQUIREMENT WITH 12 DAYS TO SPARE? YES, SIR.
UH, AT THIS POINT I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM SERGEANT CORT.
WITNESS, UH, POSSIBLY SUBJECT TO RECALL IF THAT, IF THAT WORKS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. MARTINEZ? SERGEANT MARTINEZ? YES, SIR.
SO SERGEANT, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT IN HOW WE CALCULATE ELIGIBILITY DATES? RIGHT.
I WILL SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE HISTORICALLY FOR SO MANY YEARS DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S CORRECT.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS EVER FOUGHT THIS BEFORE, WHICH MR. DAVIS ACTUALLY SAID HIMSELF, THAT HE SAID HIMSELF, THAT NOBODY HAS EVER DISPUTED THIS BEFORE IN THE PAST.
SERGEANT CORTINA, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MAY WANNA ADVOCATE A LITTLE BIT HERE, BUT MY QUESTION WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE CONSISTENT IN HOW WE CALCULATE THE ELIGIBILITY DATE, RIGHT? NO.
YOU DON'T AGREE THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT? NO, SIR.
UM, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT YOU'VE ASKED THIS BOARD TO REDEFINE ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE ANY, ANY PORTION OF THE TEST, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOW THIS, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE MIGHT RETAKE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE TEST DEPENDING ON THINGS LIKE BEING SICK DURING THE ADMINISTRATION, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE RETURNING FROM FMLA MAYBE ALLOWED TO RETAKE THE TEST, RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND.
[00:30:01]
AS WELL? YES, SIR.NOW YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO REDEFINE ADMINISTRATION HERE, BUT SURELY YOU'RE NOT ASKING THIS BOARD TO MAKE IT SO THAT ANYTIME WE HAVE AN FMLA RETEST OR MILITARY LEAVE RETEST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE HAVE TO OPEN IT UP TO AN ENTIRE YEAR OR A NEW CLASS OF OFFICERS.
YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT, RIGHT? I'M ASKING TO BE FAIR AND CONSISTENT THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE DONE PROPERLY IN THE PROPER WAY.
YOU ARE AWARE THAT A NEW TEST CAN BE CALLED FOR AT ANY TIME, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
IN LOOKING AT THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION ANNOUNCEMENT, IT LOOKS LIKE, CAN YOU LOOK AT PAGE THREE OF EXHIBIT TWO FOR ME, PLEASE? YES, SIR.
UM, DOES IT SAY THERE THAT THE COMBINED PROMOTIONAL SCORES ARE POSTED IN THE EMAIL TO CANDIDATES AS OF OCTOBER 14TH, 2025? I'M LOOKING FOR RIGHT NOW, I'M SORRY.
SO THAT MEANS THAT ASSUMING THAT THEY FOLLOWED THIS, THIS SCHEDULE, THE COMBINED SCORES HAVE ALREADY BEEN POSTED, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOW, AGAIN, THE CHIEF COULD CALL FOR A NEW TEST ANY DAY, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
BUT EVEN IF THE CHIEF DOES NOT, THIS LIST WILL EXPIRE IN LESS THAN 18 MONTHS FROM NOW.
NOW YOU WOULD BE ELIGIBLE EVEN AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, IF THE CHIEF CALLED A NEW SCRATCH THAT.
UM, IF THE CHIEF CALLED FOR A NEW TEST TODAY, YOU WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THAT TEST, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
NOW, I WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT THE, AT THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.
WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE SAME FIRST SENTENCE THERE THAT, THAT, UH, MR. CASEY WAS FOCUSED ON, BUT I WANNA POINT OUT SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC TO IT.
I'M GONNA START READING, AND I'M GONNA STOP MYSELF ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE SENTENCE MM-HMM
AND MY QUESTION TO YOU WILL BE, IF I READ THAT CORRECTLY, THOSE CANDIDATES WHO WILL MEET THESE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION MAY COMPETE ON THE EXAMINATION, BUT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE, ET CETERA.
DID I READ THAT PART CORRECTLY? YOU DID.
NOW IT SAYS ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, DOESN'T IT? CORRECT.
IT DOES NOT SAY THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION, DOES IT? IT DOES NOT.
NOW, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT THIS TEST HAS TWO PARTS, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
THE FIRST OF WHICH IS CALLED THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION, RIGHT? RIGHT.
THE SECOND OF WHICH IS CALLED THE ASSESSMENT CENTER, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO THE WORD EXAMINATION ONLY APPEARS IN ONE OF THE TWO PARTS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
NOW, YOU TE YOU ARE A SERGEANT CURRENTLY, ARE YOU NOT? YES, SIR.
CAN I ADD SOMETHING OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE FINISHED? WELL, SO HERE'S WHAT, HERE'S THE, THE, THE PROCEDURE FOR THAT IS THAT YOUR, YOUR, UH, YOUR COUNSEL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION YOU AGAIN AFTER I'M DONE.
SO IF HE WANTS TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HE CAN ASK, BECAUSE I CLEARLY STATED THE DEFINITION OF EXAMINATION IN THE CIVIL SERVICE ROLES EARLIER WHEN YES, MA'AM.
I'M, I, I'M, I'M AWARE OF THAT.
MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS, WAS, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS THE WORD EXAMINATION APPEARING IN ANY OF THE, IN EITHER EXAMINATION MEANS A TEST OR ASSESSMENT, SIR? YES, MA'AM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS A LITTLE MORE SIMPLE THAN THAT THOUGH.
NOW, YOU TOOK THE SERGEANT'S EXAM BEFORE YOU BECAME A SERGEANT, DID YOU NOT? YES, SIR.
AND, UH, THE SAME SYSTEM WAS IN PLACE THEN, AS IT IS NOW, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND YOU DIDN'T FILE A GRIEVANCE AGAINST THAT SYSTEM AT THE TIME OF YOUR SERGEANT'S EXAM, DIDN'T YOU? I DID NOT PASS THE WITNESS.
MR. CASEY? MR. CASEY, WE, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
UH, YOU'VE HEARD OPPOSING COUNSEL DURING ONE OF HIS QUESTIONS, UH, ASK YOU AND, AND ANNIE'S QUESTION ADMITTED, UH, WHETHER TACITLY OR EXPLICITLY THAT THE EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UH, MR. CASEY, CAN I READ THE TWO DEFINITIONS ONE MORE TIME, SIR? UH, YEAH.
LEMME ASK YOU, LEMME ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION REAL QUICK.
[00:35:01]
SO, IF THE EXAMINATION CONS, UH, CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, I'M GONNA ASK YOU AGAIN, AND THEN YOU CAN READ THOSE DEFINITIONS OF THE PART OF YOUR ANSWER IF YOU'D LIKE.UH, THOSE CANDIDATES WHO MEET THESE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMIN ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THE WORDS THE EXAMINATION REFER TO WHAT THIS IS CALLING ANNOUNCES A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION? WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THE EXAMINATION IS THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION? YES, SIR.
AND HOW MANY PARTS DOES THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION CONSIST OF? TWO.
IS THERE ANYTHING ON THIS ANNOUNCEMENT THAT STATES THAT JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT DOESN'T USE THE WORD EXAMINATION, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE EXAMINATION.
CAN YOU READ THE DEFINITION OF EXAMINATION AGAIN FOR YES, SIR.
FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES EXAMINATION MEANS A TEST OR ASSESSMENT DESIGNED TO EVALUATE THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF APPLICANTS TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE PARTICULAR POSITION THEY SEEK TO FILL, AND ALSO ELIGIBILITY LIST.
THE DEFINITION MEANS A LIST OF APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENTS WHO MEET A POSITION'S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION.
IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD YOU HAVE MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION? MOST DEFINITELY.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
I'M SORRY, I JUST DIDN'T HEAR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANNA FOLLOW UP WITH? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE CITY? THANK YOU.
MR. CASEY, YOU HAVE ANOTHER, YOU'RE WELCOME.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS, MR. CASEY? I HAVE ONE MORE WITNESS AND I KNOW THAT TECHNICALLY WE'RE NOT THAT FAR INTO THIS, BUT TIMEWISE WE'VE ON FOR A, CAN WE TAKE MAYBE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK IF THAT WOULD BE OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? AS LONG AS NO ONE GETS OFFLINE, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
HOW ABOUT, UH, COME BACK AT 10 35? SOUNDS, SOUNDS GREAT TO ME.
OKAY, MR. PEACOCK, ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? OKAY.
WE'LL BE IN RECESS UNTIL 10:35 AM YOU, UH, WE'RE READY TO PROCEED.
UH, WOULD LIKE TO CALL LIEUTENANT FREDERICK MEIR? GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR YOU TO BE SWORN IN AS WELL BY, UH, COURT REPORTER, LESLIE, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
AND, AND LESLIE, YOU ARE MUTED AT THE TIME.
MR. MES, IS YOUR CAMERA ON? YES, MA'AM.
THIS IS JUST SO WEIRD HOW I SEE SOME PEOPLE AND SOME PEOPLE I DON'T.
UH, I DON'T SEE YOU MR. MES, BUT I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, MA'AM.
AND LASTLY, WE'LL ALL VERIFY THAT WE SAW MR. UH, LIEUTENANT MEEZ DO THAT AND EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING'S FINE.
MR. CASEY? THANK, UH, THANK YOU, MR. GOOD MORNING, LIEUTENANT.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND RANK JUST FOR THE RECORD? MY FULL NAME IS FREDERICK EZEKIEL MES AND MY RANK IS LIEUTENANT OF POLICE.
AND WHO ARE YOU EMPLOYED BY? I AM EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, BY WAY OF THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WHEN DID YOU, UH, WHAT WAS THE DATE YOU REMEMBER OF, OF YOUR INITIAL EMPLOYMENT WITH DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT? DECEMBER THE 17TH, 2004.
UH, AND SEEING AS YOU'RE A LIEUTENANT, YOU, YOU, YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THESE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
I HAVE GONE THROUGH THREE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS.
NOW THERE ARE, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING, IS IT
[00:40:01]
TRUE THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS, UH, OF EMPLOYEES, WHETHER THAT BE COMPETITIVE VERSUS NON-COMPETITIVE? IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.CAN YOU KIND OF BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS, WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS, WHAT THE RESULT OF THIS CLASSIFICATION IS? YES, SIR.
UM, BY DEFINITION, UM, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF, UH, EMPLOYEES.
ONE OF 'EM IS BEING COMPETITIVE, MEANING THOSE POSITIONS AND EMPLOYMENT FOR WHICH IT IS PRACTICAL TO DETERMINE THE MERIT AND FITNESS OF THE APPLICANT BY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
AND THEN THE, UH, NON-COMPETITIVE CLASS, AND I'M READING FOR, UM, CITY CIVIL SERVICE RULES, DEFINITIONS THAT A NON-COMPETITIVE EMPLOYEE CLASS MEANS THOSE POSITIONS DESIGNATED TO RESPOND TO SPECIAL NEEDS IDENTIFIED BY DIRECTORS OF DEPARTMENTS AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OR POSITIONS REQUIRING PECULIAR OR EXEMPTION QUALIFICATIONS OR MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE RULES OF THE BOARD.
AND JUST TO BE, UH, CLEAR, WHICH, WHICH OF THOSE ARE YOU? I FALL INTO THE COMPETITIVE CLASS.
THOSE, I'M AN EMPLOYEE IN WHICH IT IS DETERMINED THAT I GOT MY JOB BASED ON MERIT AND FITNESS BY A COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.
SO WHAT WAS THE FIRST PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION THAT, THAT YOU, UH, THAT EXAMINE CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION THAT I TOOK, UM, FOR PROMOTIONS WOULD BE SENIOR CORPORAL.
YOU SAID TO PROMOTE TWO SENIOR CORPORAL? YES, SIR.
NOW, WHAT ARE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT TO BE ABLE TO SIT FOR THAT, UM, YEARS OF SERVERS, UM, PLUS
WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS A PRETTY NARROW QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT MR. DAVIS DID, UH, THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF 4.3 GOING THROUGH THIS ENTIRE HISTORY IS NOT EXACTLY RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IN THIS INSTANCE IS BECAUSE I'LL REMIND THE BOARD THAT THE LIEUTENANT IS, NOTRE IS NOT A G PER SE ON THIS.
SO, AND I THINK THAT THE RELEVANT RELEVANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IS NOT, UH, NOT ESTABLISHED.
MAY I RESPOND, MR. CHAIRMAN? CERTAINLY.
THE CITY'S OPENED THE DOOR ON THIS ARGUMENT OF BEING CONSISTENT AND HOW IMPORTANT THE, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENCY IS.
UH, LIEUTENANT SPEAR IS GONNA GIVE TESTIMONY, UH, THAT SHOWS THAT THERE IS A, A, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CONFLICTING CONSISTENCIES BEING APPLIED HERE, UH, BETWEEN THE SENIOR CORPORAL EXEMPT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION, UH, AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.
UM, I THINK THAT THEY ARE, HE'S GONNA TESTIFY THAT THERE'S A MIS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE, THERE IS A PATTERN, IF YOU WILL LET HIM SPEAK.
UH, THERE'S A PATTERN THAT'S BEEN USED WITH, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF EXAMINATION FOR ONE PROMOTIONAL, BUT NOT THE OTHER ONE, WHICH COMPLETELY CUTS AGAINST THIS IDEA THAT THE CITY'S BEING CONSISTENT, THAT HE'S GOT THE EXPERIENCE TO, TO TESTIFY TO THAT.
WELL, I GUESS MY, MY CONCERN WITH THAT IS WE'RE HERE ON A VERY NARROW ISSUE AND I, I, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH, WITH JUST GIMME A BACKGROUND OF, OF, OF LIEUTENANT ME'S EXPERIENCE WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPART, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
BUT GOING INTO PAST ALLEGED INCONSISTENCIES, I MEAN, THAT IS, THAT IT MAY BE HIS OPINION THAT'S NOT BEFORE US, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WOULD VERIFY, UH, WHETHER THAT IN THOSE, IN THOSE INSTANCES, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, WE HAVEN'T HEARD 'EM IN FACT OCCURRED.
SO I, I MEAN, I, I DON'T WANNA SHUT YOU DOWN.
UH, IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE BACKGROUND AND, AND MAKE, HE CAN EXPRESS HIS OPINION, BUT WE HAVE NO WAY TO VERIFY IF, IF IT'S GONNA BE IN, IN THE PAST WHERE SOME INCONSISTENCY MAY HAVE OCCURRED.
UH, THERE, THERE'S SOMEBODY NO WAY FOR US TO, TO, TO VERIFY THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, OR, OR NOT TO VERIFY THAT.
SO I, I'M HESITANT TO GET INTO, INTO THAT.
I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IF I COULD EXPLAIN MY ANSWER.
LIEUTENANT, UH, I UNDERSTAND HE NOT, HE NOT PAST ISSUES THAT HE HAD OR PAST OPINIONS.
THESE ARE FACTS ABOUT WHAT THEIR, WHAT THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THE SENIOR CORPORAL PROMOTIONAL EXAM VERSUS LIEUTENANT EXAM.
AND AGAIN, SHOWING A FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WELL, UH, YOU KNOW, THE KEY HERE IS WHAT WAS WHAT'S IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE INTERPRETING.
SO, I MEAN, I, I'LL LET YOU ASK A QUESTION AND LET,
[00:45:01]
LET MR. PEACOCK, OBVIOUSLY I'M HESITANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT MAY HAPPENED FOR A SENIOR CORPORAL POSITION BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S NOT WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS EXACTLY.
SO, MR. PEACOCK, THERE IS SOMETHING YOU WANNA OBJECT TO AS, AS THE, AS THE QUESTIONS DEVELOPED, FEEL FREE TO DO SO.
AND THEN I'LL, I'LL KEEP IT VERY NARROW ON THIS QUESTION.
LIEUTENANT SPEARS, UH, THE, THE, UH, SIX MONTHS, IS IT, WELL, THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, THE SIX MONTHS THAT APPLIES TO THE SENIOR CORPORAL EXAM, IS THAT, IS THAT SIX MONTHS BEING CALCULATED BEFORE OR AFTER ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES? YE SO TO CLEAR UP THIS COURT, THIS IS MY STATEMENT, UM, BASED ON A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION EXAMS THAT CONSIST OF A WRITTEN IS, IS, UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR A YEAR AFTER THE LIST HAS BEEN DETERMINED.
AND FOR EXAMINATIONS THAT HAVE, UM, THAT'S SO INCLUDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT CENTERS AS IN THE EXAMINATION, THOSE ARE 18 MONTHS.
SO TWO TYPES OF, TWO TYPES OF EXAMS. OKAY.
BUT THAT TIME PERIOD FOLLOW THE SENIOR CORPORAL IS AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT EXAM, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UH, YOU WERE PERSONALLY PRESENT IN THE MEETING THAT, UH, BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR OPINION ON THIS SINCE YOU WERE THERE, AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
UH, YOU WERE IN THE MEETING, UH, YOU HEARD CRYSTAL COURT TESTIFY MEETING SHE HAD WITH MR. DAVIS.
YOU WERE IN THAT MEETING, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
DID YOU PERSONALLY ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. DAVIS OR GIVE ANY KIND OF PRESENTATION? YES, SIR, I DID.
CAN YOU BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE WHAT, WHAT YOU TOLD MR. DAVIS IN THAT MEETING? I, I TOLD HIM, BASED UPON, I'M GONNA OBJECT CUMULATIVE, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA OBJECT ON BASED ON CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE.
UM, WE HEARD A PRETTY LONG ACCOUNT OF THAT MEETING ALREADY.
I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THE, THE, UH, THE POINT OR THE RELEVANCE OF HEARING IT A SECOND TIME.
I WAS SAY, I THINK THE BOARD CAN ASSESS THE, THE RELEVANCE OF IT.
SO I'M OVERRULE THE OBJECTION, MR. CASEY, PLEASE PROCEED.
AND, AND, AND AGAIN, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
SO BASED UPON OUR MEETING, WE, WE ACTUALLY MET WITH, UH, MR. DAVIS TWICE, UM, IN PERSON.
UM, THE FIRST TIME WE MET WITH HIM WAS DOING THE, UH, PUBLIC SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT WITH CIVIL SERVICE.
AND WE WERE, UM, ADVISED TO COME AND SCHEDULE A, A MEETING WITH HIM.
UM, AS LONG AS WE CORRECTLY DOCUMENTED, WE SCHEDULED A MEETING WITH HIM AND SAT DOWN IN HIS OFFICE.
WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS THE QUALIFICATIONS, THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BEING ABLE TO TAKE THE LIEUTENANTS EXAM.
WHAT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED WAS THERE WERE OTHER END OF OTHER MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHO WERE ALSO PROMOTED WITH, UH, SERGEANT MARTINEZ ON MARCH THE THIRD OF 2021.
UM, ITEMS THAT WERE ALSO DISCUSSED WITH THE DEFINITIONS BY MEANS OF WHAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES ARE AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE APPLIED, AND HOW WE PROFESSIONALLY THOUGHT THAT THEY SHOULD BE APPLIED.
AND THAT BASED UPON, UM, FINDING SOMETHING THAT COULD BE INCONSISTENT, WE FIX IT AND WE WORK TOGE, COLLABORATE AS A TEAM TO, UM, FIX THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE AN EXAM THAT THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR.
SO IN, IN YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE WITH DPD AND YOU'RE GETTING PROMOTED ALL THE WAY UP TO LIEUTENANT, UH, HOW FAMILIAR YOU ARE FAMILIAR, ARE YOU WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES? UH, I'M VERY FAMILIAR.
I WAS, UH, A GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR FOR DALLAS PD FOR THREE YEARS, AND I KNOW THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND SOME, UH, PERSONNEL RULES.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO KNOW FOR OUR JOBS, FOR, FOR THE POSITION I HAVE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE RULES WITH THE DEALING WITH THE EMPLOYEES.
SO YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN RULE FOUR, BUT THE SUBJECT OF THIS, UH, GRIEVANCE HEARING TODAY? Y YES, SIR.
I'M VERY, I AM FAMILIAR WITH IT, YES, SIR.
UH, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S QUESTIONED YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH IT.
UH, IF WE WANT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE DOWARD STANDARDS, BUT, UH, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
LET ME GET, LET ME GET IT CORRECT ON, ON PAGE EIGHT.
[00:50:03]
WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY, YES, SIR, I HAVE IT.IT'S ACTUALLY THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
I, I KEEP SAYING PAGE EIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT SHOWED UP ON MY PD FILE, SO I APOLOGIZE.
AGAIN, THAT AGAIN, THAT THE, THE PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS WITH THE LANGUAGE, THOSE CANDIDATES, WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS, BUT IT DOES SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING, UH, BASED ON YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND THE FAMILIARITY WITH THESE EXAMINATIONS, UM, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS PARTICULAR EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS? YES, SIR.
NOT ONLY WILL I AGREE, BUT I COULD SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHERE IT IS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
WE'RE JUST, WE'RE WE'RE TALKING THAT, YES, SIR.
I DO AGREE THE PHRASE, I WANT YOUR OPINION WITH YOUR FAMILIARITY AND YOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, UH, I WANT YOUR OPINION ON THE PHRASE FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU, UH, REGARDING HOW AND WHEN THAT SIX MONTHS STARTS TO RUN? UM, TWO WORDS AUTOMATICALLY COME TO MIND.
THE FIRST ONE IS AFTER, AND THE OTHER ONE IS POST.
IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION? YES, SIR.
AFTER LEADING THE EXAMINATION.
AND THEN, AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION, BASED ON YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH THESE RULES AND THE LANGUAGE OF THESE RULES, UH, AND YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS.
UM, AT WHAT POINT IS THIS EXAMINATION CONSIDERED ADMINISTERED? OBJECT SPECULATION.
HE WAS ASKED MR. MR ALLOWED TO EXPERIENCE MR. CHAIRMAN, AM I ALLOWED TO SPEAK? ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I HEARD TWO PEOPLE SPEAK AT ONE, SO I WASN'T SURE.
MR. CASEY, IS THERE A QUESTION? UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT TOO, BECAUSE I, I KIND OF HEARD GARBLED MR. PEACOCK HAD, HAD, UH, FORWARDED AN OBJECTION BASED ON SPECULATION.
AND MY RESPONSE WAS, I WAS ASKING HIS OPINION OF WHAT THOSE, WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN, SIMPLY BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE OF FAMILIARITY WITH THESE RULES.
ARE, ARE WE ASKING FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE, IN PRO PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION ANNOUNCEMENT OR IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES? I'M ASKING FOR HIS, BUT HE WAS TESTIFYING TO AS TO HIS FAMILIARITY WITH THESE RULES AND HIS EXPERIENCE THAT I WAS JUST SIMPLY ASKING IN HIS OPINION, BASED ON THAT EXPERIENCE, WHAT IS THE PHRASE FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ADMINISTER AN EXAMINATION UNDER THESE RULES? OKAY.
I, I ALLOW HIM TO TESTIFY, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S GONNA BE THE ULTIMATE DECISION FROM THE BOARD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. SHARON.
GO AHEAD AND ANSWER, UH, BRIEFLY.
TO ME, TO, TO ME PROFESSIONALLY SPEAKING ON WHAT ADMINISTERED MEANS, IT MEANS THAT A, IT MEANS THAT AN A, UM, A DEPARTMENT, UM, RECOGNIZES A DATE TO WHERE THEIR EMPLOYEES FOLLOW, UM, HAVE INDIVIDUALS TAKE EXAMS WHERE THEY'RE, UM, SCHEDULED OUT TO WHERE THEY ARE GIVING THEM TEST BOOKLETS, THEY'RE GIVING THEM TEST ANSWERS, OR THEY'RE CALLED IN, UM, I SHOULD SAY, UM, A FIRM TO COME AND GIVE TESTS TO AND HAVE IT SCORED.
SO ONE IS WHEN FACILITATORS LISTEN TO AN, UH, EMPLOYEES GIVE ANSWERS AND SCORE THOSE ANSWERS BASED UPON HOW THE QUESTION IS ASKED TO DETERMINE THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY ON HOW THEY MIGHT BE PERCEIVED AS A LEADER.
PARSE THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT.
SO YOU SAID MENTIONED SCORING.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER THE EXAMINATION'S DONE, THAT'S WHEN IT CAN BE CONSIDERED ADMINISTERED IN YOUR OPINION? YES, SIR.
IT IS ADMINISTERED AT THAT POINT.
UH, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTION.
MR. PEACOCK, YOU STATED ON DIRECT THAT, UH, YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS
AND SO YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT THE LIEUTENANT EXAMINATION, UH, HAS TWO PARTS, ONE BEING THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND THE OTHER BEING THE ASSESSMENT CENTER.
I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, CORRECT.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE MAKE IT CLEAR, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU'RE REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THESE, UH, WITH THESE RULES, RIGHT? I AM FAMILIAR.
ONCE YOU READ THEM AND STUDY THEM AND FIND YOURSELF
[00:55:01]
TO BE, UM, APPROVED, THEN YES, SIR.I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN MAKE YOURSELF VERY FAMILIAR WITH THESE RULES.
SO YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT RULE FOUR, SECTION 4.3 B, WHICH IS THIS, UH, ACTUALLY, LET'S, LET'S ZOOM THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT SO EVERYBODY CAN BE, DO YOU MIND PULLING UP THE, THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ME, THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMS, THE PAGE, WE'VE BEEN USING THE MOST LOGO AT THE TOP.
LIEUTENANT, DO YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU? YES, SIR.
I HAVE THE CIVIL SERVICE SERVICE RULES.
DO YOU HAVE THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE POLICE, FOR THE POLICE DESCEND ON FROM APRIL 9TH OF THIS YEAR? YES, SIR.
I DO HAVE THE, UH, ANNOUNCEMENT IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, DO YOU, I'M GONNA POINT TO THAT ONE PARAGRAPH WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, UH, RIGHT ABOVE THE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED APPLICATION TO TAKE THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
DO YOU SEE THAT PARAGRAPH? YES, SIR.
YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES THAT THIS, THAT THO THAT THAT PARAGRAPH REFLECTS CIVIL SERVICE RULE FOUR, SECTION 4.3 B, IS THAT RIGHT? IT DOES HAVE IT IN, UM, PARENTHESES TO SHOW WHERE IT CAME FROM.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT SECTION 4.3 B SAYS THAT IS MINUS THE LAST SENTENCE? THAT'S WHAT IT'S, UM, THE SUMMARY OF WHAT IT SAYS.
THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT SECTION FOUR THREE B SAYS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, THOUGH.
I, I, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I SENT IT AS ADDED ON TO THE, TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT ITSELF, BUT, BUT THE, SO CAN, CAN I, CAN I READ, CAN I, WOULD YOU MIND IF I READ SECTION 4.3 B? YEAH, GO FOR IT.
SO, SO WHAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE SAYS FOR SECTION 4.3 B, IT SAYS COMPLETION OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS WHEREIN A LOWER RANK IS MADE A PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CLASSIFIED POSITION.
THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO A PERMANENT POSITION IN THEIR RANK AS A RESULT OF A PASSING PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION AND HAVE RECEIVED TO PAY FOR THAT RANK.
THE CANDIDATES WHO WILL MEET THE ELIGIBILITY FOR CRITERIA FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL RANK PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION MAY COMPETE ON THAT EXAMINATION, BUT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION TO THE HIGHER RANK UNTIL THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION REFERENCED IN THIS SECTION.
AND THAT'S WHAT SECTION 4.3 B STATES.
YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME WITH 4.3 B APPLIES TO MOST, IF NOT ALL PROMOTIONS FOR SWORN OFFICERS, RIGHT? I WOULD SAY I WOULD HAVE TO, UM, WELL, WE COULD TAKE A GRANTED IF YOU'D LIKE, WHICH YOU YEAH, NO, SIR, I, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THAT IT DOES REPLY TO THE RANKS OF MOTION MINUS THOSE THAT ARE WHERE YOU, UM, I, UM, I, UM, OUR CHIEF OF POLICE MAY PROMOTE SOMEONE TO HIS EXECUTIVE BOARD THEN THAT PROMOTION.
BUT WE'RE JUST SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE RANK OF SENIOR CORPORAL, SERGEANT AND LIEUTENANT THEN? YES.
THAT WAS GONNA BE MY NEXT QUESTION.
SO THAT MEANS THAT 4.3 APPLIES, JUST TO SUMMARIZE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR, 4.3 WOULD APPLY TO NOT ONLY LIEUTENANT THE LIEUTENANT, UH, PROMOTION, BUT ALSO TO SERGEANT AND TO SENIOR CORPORAL, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT EXAMINATION THEN? YES, SIR.
SO THE EXAMINATION FOR LIEUTENANT HAS TWO PARTS, THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND THE ASSESSMENT CENTER, RIGHT? BASED ON THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES? YES, SIR.
THE PROMOTION FOR SENIOR CORPORAL ONLY HAS A WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
THE, UM, PROMOTION FOR THE RANK OF SENIOR CORPORAL ONLY HAS ONE, UM, TEST ONE EXAMINATION.
SO IF, SO, IF 4.3 ONLY APPLIES WHENEVER, UH, IF, IF 4.3 APPLIES TO TESTS THAT DO NOT HAVE ASSESSMENT CENTERS, THEN OF COURSE THAT WOULD BE THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
PICK OFF THE, THE START DATE, RIGHT? YOU DON'T DISPUTE THAT.
WELL, AGAIN, SO IF, AGAIN, IF WE'RE READING SECTION 4.3 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, UM, IT TALKS ABOUT ACTUALLY FIVE RANKS, NOT JUST THE C CORPORAL AND SERGEANT AND LIEUTENANT, JUST TO, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, 4.3 TALKS ABOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION FOR, FOR THE PROMOTION OF A POLICE OFFICER, FOR THE PROMOTION OF A POLICE OFFICER, FOR THE PROMOTION OF A SENIOR CORPORAL FOR THE PROMOTION
[01:00:01]
OF A SERGEANT, AND FOR THE, THE, UH, RANK OF A LIEUTENANT LIEUTENANT.I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA FOCUS IN HERE ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIEUTENANT AND SENIOR CORPORAL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OPPOSING COUNSEL, WHICH IS ATTEMPTING TO DO SO, JUST TO MAKE MATTERS.
FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE BOARD HERE, THE LIEUTENANT EXAMINATION HAS TWO DIFFERENT PARTS, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND THE, UM, SENIOR CORPORAL, UH, EXAMINATION ONLY HAS THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION, RIGHT? ONLY HAS A WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
SO IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE QUOTE, SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE SAME DATE SINCE THAT RULE APPLIES TO BOTH CASES, RIGHT? NO, SIR, IT DOES NOT.
IT WOULD NOT APPLY AS FAR AS SERGEANT AND LIEUTENANT DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU'RE ADMINISTERING TWO EXAMINATIONS.
I'M GONNA POINT, I'M GONNA POINT YOU TO THE SAME PLACE I APPOINTED SERGEANT CORT.
UH, THE FIRST PART OF THE EXAMINATION IS CALLED THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
IS IT NOT? THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS USED.
AND SO WHEN AND SO ON JULY 8TH, WHENEVER THIS WRITTEN EXAMINATION WAS ADMINISTERED, THAT WAS THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION, WAS IT THE FIRST HALF OF AN EXAMINATION? YES, SIR.
BUT PER THE RULES EXAMINATION HAS AN ASSESSMENT CENTER AND IT HAS A WRITTEN EXAM, NOT CIVIL RULES.
AGAIN, THERE ARE FIVE DIFFERENT PROMOTIONS UNDER 4.3.
THE TWO THAT WE'RE SPEAKING, WELL, WE JUST TALKED.
CORPORAL HAS ONLY ONE AND THE ONE FOR LIEUTENANT HAS TWO.
SO THEN YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT NOT EVERY EXAMINATION HAS AN ASSESSMENT CENTER.
THERE ARE TWO EXAMS THAT HAVE THE ASSESSMENT CENTERS, SERGEANT, LIEUTENANT, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
NOW, YOU PARTICIPATED IN THIS SYSTEM WHEN YOU PROMOTED TO SENIOR CORPORAL, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND YOU DIDN'T GRIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM AT THAT TIME, DID YOU? I DID NOT DUE TO THE FACT THAT, UM, I DID NOT, I DID NOT HAVE A GRIEVANCE AT THE TIME.
BUT WHEN I WAS, WHEN I DO BELIEVE AS A CITY EMPLOYEE, WE DO HAVE RIGHTS TO FILE GRIEVANCES IF WE HAVE A COMPLAINT OF SOMETHING PER OUR PERSONNEL RULES.
SO AT THAT TIME, I DO NOT HAVE A COMPLAINT, BUT I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THOSE WRITTEN EXAMS. YES, SIR.
AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE, UH, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU DID NOT GRIEVE THE SYSTEM FOR YOUR SERGEANT OR LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONS, RIGHT? I DID NOT PASS THOSE.
MR. CASEY, YOU'VE GONE OFF MY SCREEN.
DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY FURTHER? I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR LIEUTENANT ME? UH, I DO HAVE JUST A COUPLE.
LIEUTENANT, UH, THE LANGUAGE FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, UH, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT THERE ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT ON PAGE ONE, UH, DOES IT SAY, FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, ONLY WHEN THERE'S JUST A WRITTEN EXAM PORTION? UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, DO YOU MIND IF I READ IT OUT LOUD? LIEUTENANT, LIEUTENANT? I'M SORRY.
I'M LITERALLY, DOES IT SAY THAT, DOES IT SAY FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION ONLY WHEN THERE'S JUST A WRITTEN EXAMINATION? N NO, IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.
IT JUST, IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.
AND ON THE SENIOR CORPORAL, THAT TIMEFRAME, THERE'S ONLY A WRITTEN EXAMINATION ON THERE, BUT THE TIMEFRAME OF ELIGIBILITY STARTS AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT EXAM, DOESN'T IT? YES, SIR.
AND THERE'S 15 DAYS FOR CHALLENGES ON THAT THEN ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.
SO THIS IS ALL AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT EXAM, RIGHT? NOT AT THE BEGINNING, YES, SIR.
AFTER, AFTER CHALLENGES, UM, OF QUESTIONS AND CHA AFTER CHALLENGES OF QUESTIONS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MISSED? YES, SIR.
I, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER, MR. PEACOCK.
DO ANYTHING FURTHER? NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.
MR. CASEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER WITNESSES? UH, I DO NOT.
MR. CHAIR, WE WERE ASKED AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU, MR. PEACOCK? YES, MR. CHAIR, WE
[01:05:01]
CALL JARED DAVIS'S STAND.THIS LIKELY YOU BE SOME KIND OF WEARING MR. DAVIS? YES.
MR. DAVIS, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
AND LESLIE, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE MR. PEACOCK DO THAT ON YOUR, ON YOUR, UH, MR. MR. DAVIS? NO, I DIDN'T SEE HIM.
WE'LL CONFIRM THAT HE RAISED HIS RIGHT HAND.
HE, HE, HE WENT THROUGH IT TOO.
SO JUST IF, BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO SEE THAT.
WE'LL, WE'LL CONFIRM THAT FOR YOU.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OBJECTION TO THIS.
DO YOU MIND INTRODUCING YOURSELF TO THE TRIAL BOARD? YES.
MY NAME IS J DAVIS AND I SERVE THE CITY OF DALLAS AS A CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SECRETARY AND DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT ROLE? I'VE BEEN IN THIS ROLE NOW NEARLY SEVEN YEARS NOW.
IN YOUR SEVEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE BOARD GENERALLY THE PROCESS THAT GOES INTO TESTING FOR, UH, DPD PROMOTIONS? SURE.
UM, WHEN WE RECEIVE A REQUEST TO, UH, YOU KNOW, CONDUCT A PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION FOR RANK WITHIN THE SWORN SERVICE, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CONVERSATION, UM, WE OPEN UP AN APPLICATION PERIOD FOR POTENTIAL ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO APPLY TO SIT FOR, UM, THE PROMOTIONAL EXERCISE OR EXAMINATION.
UM, WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES, UM, OUR TEAM EVALUATES THEIR PRIOR SERVICE LOOKING AT THEIR SERVICE RECORDS BY RANK AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AN INDI AN INDIVIDUAL IS ELIGIBLE TO SIT FOR AN ANNOUNCED EXAMINATION.
FROM THERE, WE SCHEDULE THOSE ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS CAUSE THAT EXAM OR THAT COMPONENT OF THAT EXAM TO OCCUR.
UM, WALK THROUGH THE POST ITEM REVIEW, UM, SCORING OF THE EXAMINATION AND POSTING OF THOSE SCORES, AND THEN SUBSEQUENT SCHEDULING, UM, IF THEY PASS, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE A PASSING SCORE ON TO THE ASSESSMENT AND CENTER.
UM, AND THAT COMPLETES THE PROMOTIONAL EXERCISE, AND THAT LEADS INTO, AND WE'VE HEARD SOME TESTIMONY EARLIER, I APOLOGIZE, AND THAT LEADS INTO THE CREATION OF AN, UH, ELIGIBLE REGI, A REGISTRAR OF ELIGIBLES THAT COULD LAST ANYWHERE FROM A YEAR TO 18 MONTHS, UM, AS A BYPRODUCT OF THE, OF THESE EXERCISES.
SO THE, THE TEST SPECIFICALLY FOR THE LIEUTENANTS, UH, PROMOTION, HOW MANY PARTS DOES THAT TEST HAVE, UM, THAT THE POLICE LIEUTENANT, UM, PROMOTIONAL EXAM AS ADVERTISED IN JULY OF 2025 CONSISTED OF TWO, UH, PORTIONS OR COMPONENTS? WHY ARE THERE TWO COMPONENTS? WELL, IT'S, UH, WHY ARE THERE TWO COMPONENTS? WELL, WE WANT TO A TEST CANDIDATES WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, WRITTEN KNOWLEDGE IN A WRITTEN EXAM FORM.
AND THEN THE SECOND COMPONENT IS TO TEST THEIR ABILITY TO APPLY CERTAIN KEY KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES IN A ASSESSMENT CENTER COMPONENT, UM, OF, OF THE EXAM, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, SO IN OTHER WORDS, UH, YOU HAVE TO DO PART ONE BEFORE PART TWO? CORRECT.
IF AN, IF AN APPLICANT FAILS IN PART ONE, ARE THEY ALLOWED TO GO TO PART TWO? NO, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO PART TWO.
UM, PARTICIPATION IN PART TWO IS CONTINGENT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERFORMANCE IN PART ONE.
HOW IS SOMEBODY, AND WE KNOW, KNOW, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY ON IT, BUT JUST BRIEFLY, HOW IS SOMEBODY CONSIDERED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION? WE TAKE A LOOK AT A, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, BASED ON 4.3 IN THE RULE, WHAT WE, WE'VE READ AND HEARD, READ.
WE TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR, AT THEIR SERVICE IN THE PRE OR IN THE PRIOR RANK TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE, UH, TO COMPETE.
AS WE OUTLINE IN OUR ANNOUNCEMENT, WE, WE LOOK AT THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAM AND DETERMINE IF THEY'LL MEET THE ELIGIBILITY WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION, UM, OF THAT, OF THAT COMPONENT.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU GET THE JANUARY 8TH, 2026 DATE THAT'S IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE JULY 8TH TESTING DATE.
NOW, WHY HAS CIVIL SERVICE CHOSEN TO INTERPRET THIS AS A JANUARY 8TH INSTEAD OF A MARCH, UH, 15TH? WELL, FOR ONE, FOR ONE REASON IS THAT YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBSEQUENT PORTION WITHOUT BEING QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FIRST.
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT, AND, AND THE SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT, OR SECOND PART TO THAT ANSWER, MR. PEACOCK, IS
[01:10:02]
THE WRITTEN EXAM PORTION OF THIS EXAMINATION IS AN ADMINISTRATION THAT'S THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION OF THIS, OF THIS EXAM.AND SO THAT'S WHY WE TAKE A SIX MONTH LOOK BACK TO JULY 8TH, WHICH IS SIX MONTHS FROM THAT ADMINISTRATION.
I'LL ALSO POINT YOUR ATTENTION TO, SINCE WE'RE ON THE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE ANNOUNCEMENT, WE ALSO EXPLICITLY STATE THAT IN OUR IMPORTANT DATES, THAT'S ON PAGE THREE OF FIVE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT ON PAGE THREE OF FIVE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THOSE IMPORTANT DATES AND EVENTS ON JULY 8TH, WE SHOW THAT THE WRITTEN EXAM IS ADMINISTERED.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT'S THE SIX MONTH FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATION DATE THAT WE LOOK AT TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY.
SO TO MAKE THAT, UH, TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE THAT FOR THE, FOR THE BOARD, I CAN'T THEN, AS AN, AS AN EMPLOYEE APPLY FOR THEIR JULY 8TH TEST IF I'M NOT GONNA BE, UH, ELIGIBLE ON JANUARY 8TH.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING? THE, DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE GRIEVANT AND ASKING FOR IN THIS CASE? YES.
I UNDERSTAND THE GRIEVANT TO BE REQUESTING THAT THEIR ELIGIBILITY BE DETERMINED SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ASSESSMENT CENTER, WHICH IS THE SECONDARY COMPONENT TO THE WRITTEN ADMINIS EXAM ADMINISTRATION.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, UM, CALCULATING FROM, AND I THINK WE HEARD OPPOSING COUNSEL MAKE MENTION OF THIS CALCULATING AT EARLIEST FROM SEPTEMBER 15TH IS IN EFFECT THE, THE GRIEVANCE REQUEST IN TERMS OF CALCULATING THE SIX MONTHS ELIGIBILITY.
SHOULD THE, SHOULD THE BOARD AGREE WITH THE, WITH THE GRIEVANCE, WHAT EFFECT WOULD, IF ANY, WOULD THAT HAVE ON PEOPLE WHO WAITED FOR THEIR FIVE, THEIR FIVE YEARS TO ACCUMULATE BEFORE APPLYING TO THE EXAM? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE, WHAT EFFECT DOES THAT HAVE ON THEM? WELL, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE AN OPERATIONAL AND AN ORGANIZATIONAL NIGHTMARE FOR, FOR US IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THESE EXAMS, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON IS THAT WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH AT SOME POINT IN TIME THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE.
IF WE, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO GO OUT INTO THE FUTURE AND, AND KNOW WHAT THAT FUTURE ELIGIBILITY DATE IS.
UM, THERE'S ALSO A PLANNING COMPONENT THAT I THINK THAT MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN WE THINK ABOUT PLANNING ASSESSMENT CENTERS AND WHEN THEY OCCUR, SOMETIMES THEY OCCUR SOONER THAN OTHER TIMES THAT THEY OCCUR.
AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING WITH VENDORS AND ASSESSORS FROM ACROSS THE NATION TO, TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE ASSESSMENT CENTERS OCCUR, UM, IN THAT FASHION.
AND SO FROM AN ADMINISTRATION AND AN OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR US TO, TO CHANGE THE WAY IN WHICH WE INTERPRET, UM, ELIGIBILITY DATES.
AND THAT'S NOT EVEN GETTING INTO THE COMPLEXITY THAT WOULD BE INTRODUCED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE OUT FOR PRESCRIBING REASONS WITHIN OUR RULES AND ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR AN ALTERNATE ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS VERY CLEAR IN OUR RULES THAT WE, WE TREAT, YOU KNOW, EACH EXAM COMPONENT, BE IT WRITTEN OR ASSESSMENT AS AN ADMINISTRATION, AND THEREFORE CALCULATE ELIGIBILITY FROM THERE.
WELL, YOU SAID, UH, THAT'S NOT EVEN GETTING INTO IT, BUT I, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO IT A LITTLE BIT.
JARED, DO YOU MIND EXPLAINING TO THE BOARD OF ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATIONS AND HOW THIS, UH, PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE, UM, TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES, WHAT IT WOULD IMPACT THOSE? WELL, AS, AS OUR RULES PRESCRIBED THAT IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND AN, AN ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAM, UM, YOU CAN MAKE THAT UP PROVIDED THAT YOU SUSTAINED AN UN A WORK RELATED INJURY, YOU'RE OUT FOR SOME WORK RELATED, UM, TRAINING INJURY, UM, FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, MILITARY LEAVE, OR SOME RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE THAT PRECLUDES YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO ATTEND THAT ADMINISTRATION.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, CHANGING THE WAY IN WHICH WE DETERMINE THAT ELIGIBILITY AGAIN, WOULD MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY OUT IN SOME FUTURE DATE.
NOT ONLY, NOT ONLY THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IS THEN WE WOULD RUN INTO THE ISSUE OF, AND I THINK WE HEARD THIS IN MAYBE SOME PREVIOUS HEARINGS ABOUT THEN WE WOULD RUN THE RISK OF, OR WE HAVE TWO OVERLAPPING LISTS THAT WOULD OCCUR AS A RESULT OF MOVING OUT ELIGIBILITY.
I THINK WE HEARD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ABOUT SOME LIST LISTS ARE IN EXISTENCE FOR ONE YEAR, WHERE SOME LISTS THEY HAVE SHELF LIFE UP TO 18 MONTHS, PROVIDED YOU KNOW THAT THE CHIEF DOESN'T, UM, REQUEST AN EXTENSION OR FOR A NEW EXAM TO OCCUR.
NOW, IF THE BOARD AGREES TO CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION, UH, TO THE CREDIT OF SERGEANT PORT, IS THAT GONNA BE THE END OF THE MATTER? IS IT GONNA BE FULLY SETTLED BY THIS? UM, NO, I, I, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE, I THINK
[01:15:01]
WE'D HAVE TO, TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE TO ELIGIBILITY IN SOME FUTURE DATE AND, AND TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHO ELSE MAY HAVE APPLIED THAT, THAT, THAT DID NOT MEET THE JANUARY 8TH, 2026 ELIGIBILITY DATE.I MEAN, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME ANALYSIS AND, AND SOME, SOME MITIGATION OF, OF ISSUES.
UH, SHOULD THE BOARD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, DO YOU THINK IF THE, DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY RISK IF THE BOARD RULES IN FAVOR OF SERGEANT MARTINEZ, THAT SOMEONE ELSE WILL COME IN HERE AND TRY TO PUSH THE DATE EVEN FURTHER BACK? YEAH, I, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BECOME THE TREND, UM, AND THAT WE WOULD, THAT WE WOULD, WE WOULD SEE IN TERMS OF, UM, EXAM ADMINISTRATION AND THE MANAGEMENT THEREOF, WHICH AGAIN GOES BACK TO MY CONCERN THAT I STATED TO YOU ABOUT THE OPERATIONS, UM, THE OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATION CONCERNS AS WE, AS WE MANAGE THAT FORWARD PASS WITNESS.
MR. CASEY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAVIS? UH, YES, MR. CHAIR.
SORRY, I HAVE TO LOOK AT MY CLOCK.
STILL, UH, LET'S GO BACK BECAUSE YOU'VE ADMITTED, UH, ON A STAND AND LET ME GET TO IT.
HEY, BEN, BEFORE YOU JUMP IN, IS, IS, IS HE, IS HE REALLY CHOPPY FOR EVERYBODY ELSE OR IS IT JUST ME? YES, YES.
I, I THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS JUST MINE, BUT YEAH, IT KEEPS FREEZING.
WELL, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HIS IMAGE OR HIS, OR HIS TESTIMONY? IT'S A LOT OF START AND STOPS FRENCH BY NOW.
I'M GETTING HIM CLEAR AND CLEAR.
I'M GETTING EVERYTHING AS AM I.
HEY, Y'ALL, YOU HEAR MR. MR. CASEY AND MR. PEACOCK? I CAN HEAR IT'S, I CANNOT SEE THEM.
THERE IS NO, THEY'RE NOT ON MY, ALL I'VE GOT IS JARED'S LITTLE CUTE PHOTOGRAPH,
CASEY, CAN YOU, ARE YOU ABLE TO PROCEED? YES, SIR.
I, I THINK THEY'LL PROBABLY FINE IF I'VE GOTTA SLOW DOWN AND TRIPS, IF IT TRIPS UP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, I THINK WITH PEOPLE BEING IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, WE MAY HAVE SOME DIFFERENT INTERNET ISSUES GOING ON.
UH, SO, UH, MR. DAVIS, SO YOU'VE TESTIFIED, UH, THAT THE EXAMINATION FOR THE PROMOTION TO LIEUTENANT CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
THAT MEANS THE OVERALL, THE ENTIRETY OF THE EXAMINATION ITSELF HAS TWO PARTS, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND YOU ALSO ADMIT THIS IN YOUR, UH, GRIEVANCE DETERMINATION LETTER, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THAT, AT CITY'S EXHIBIT THREE.
UH, IF YOU WILL LOOK DOWN ON PAGE, UH, I THINK IT'S THE FIRST PAGE.
YEAH, IT'S THE FIRST PAGE OF THE LETTER, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM THAT STARTS WITH, BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FACTS, UH, FOUR LINES DOWN.
YOU WRITE, DESPITE THE FACT THIS PROMOTION EXERCISE HAS TWO COMPONENTS, IT IS TREATED AS ONE EXAMINATION.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WRITE, CORRECT? THAT IS WHAT I WRITE.
AND IF WE GO BACK TO THE RULE THAT'S CITED IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT, IT STATES FOLLOWING SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, WHICH YOU ADMITTED IN YOUR LETTER CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, RIGHT? OKAY.
SO HOW IS IT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, IS CONSIDERED BY YOU TO BE ADMINISTERED AFTER ONLY THE ADMINISTRATION OF ONE PART? I CONSIDER WE, WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT IT HAS TWO COMPONENTS, AND MY LETTER TALKS ABOUT IT BEING ONE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION.
BUT IF I COULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO PAGE THREE OF FIVE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT AND EVEN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION.
SO THEN WE LOOK AT THE RULE, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE RULE BEING IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BOTH OR RIGHT COMPONENTS.
AND SO THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION OF THIS EXAM
[01:20:01]
CONCLUDED OR TOOK PLACE ON JULY THE EIGHTH, THEREFORE THAT'S HOW THE CALCULATION WAS DETERMINED.BUT THAT ADMINISTRATION THAT TOOK PLACE ON JULY 8TH WASN'T THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ENTIRE EXAM BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.
RIGHT? IT WAS THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN COMPONENT THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN PARTICIPATE AND IN THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THE EXAMINATION.
BUT THE RULES SO THAT, SO MR. CASEY, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN'T JUMP ON THE EXAMINATION TRAIN AT THE SECOND STOP DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY AND THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
AND THEN IF YOU SUCCESSFULLY PERFORM AN ELIGIBLE TO SIT FOR THAT, THEN YOU ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THE EXAMINATION.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RULE STATES, IS IT? THE RULE STATES WHAT, REMIND ME AGAIN, OF WHAT RULE YOU'RE REFERRING TO 4.3 B THAT'S BEEN THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING THAT ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT SAYS SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION.
THE EXAMINATION MEANING THE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION, WHICH YOU ADMITTED CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN PORTION OF THE EXAMINATION.
DOES IT, IT IS VERY PLAIN LANGUAGE DOES IT OR NOT? OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE OBJECTION, COMPOUND QUESTION AT THIS POINT, THAT'S MULTIPLE QUESTIONS POSED MULTIPLE FARIES.
NO, I, I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
THERE ARE ALL QUESTIONS THERE.
I'LL REPHRASE THE QUESTION ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
DOES IT STATE SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN PORTION OF THE EXAMINATION, DOES IT SAY THAT? NO, THAT ANNOUNCEMENT ON ITS FACE DOES NOT SAY THAT.
NOW LET'S GO BACK DOWN TO PAGE THREE.
UH, THE IMPORTANT DATES SECTION THAT YOU, THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
SO YOU POINTED OUT, UH, JULY 8TH, 2025.
IT SAYS WRITTEN EXAM ADMINISTERED, RIGHT? CORRECT.
DOES IT SAY THE EXAM ADMINISTERED OR DOES IT JUST SAY WRITTEN EXAM ADMINISTERED? PAGE 3 0 5 SAYS WRITTEN EXAM ADMINISTERED.
SO LET'S GO BACK DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER ON THAT SAME PAGE.
DO YOU SEE THE DATES SEPTEMBER 15TH THROUGH THE 19TH 2025? I DO.
ASSESSMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATION? IT SAYS ASSESSMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATION.
SO IT, DOES THAT REFER TO THE ADMINISTERING OF THE SECOND PHASE OF THE LIEUTENANT PROMOTIONAL EXAM? CORRECT.
UNDER PART, IF YOU LOOK JUST ABOVE THAT SEPTEMBER 15TH THROUGH THE 19TH, IT SAYS PART TWO ASSESSMENT CENTER.
OKAY, SO THAT'S MEANING PART TWO OF THE ENTIRE LIEUTENANT EXAM, RIGHT? THE ASSESSMENT CENTER COMPONENT OF THE OVERALL EXAMINATION FOR LIEUTENANT PROMOTION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATION DATE FOR BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE EXAM, RIGHT? THERE ARE TWO ADMINISTRATIONS FOR BOTH PARTS, CORRECT.
NOW, WE KIND OF GOT INTO THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE LOGISTICS OF WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN IF THE BOARD TODAY WERE TO RULE THAT, YOU KNOW, SERGEANT MARTINEZ AS AN INTERPRETATION IS IN FACT CORRECT AND ALLOWED HER TO SIT FOR IT.
AND YOU CITED, YOU KNOW, FAILURE TO KNOW IN THE FUTURE HOW WE WOULD SET THE ELIGIBILITY DATE.
UM, YOU WERE WORRIED THAT PEOPLE WOULD COME IN AND TRY TO PUSH THE DATE BACK FURTHER.
UH, MS. CORT FILED A GRIEVANCE, CORRECT? THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
AND IN THAT GRIEVANCE, SHE WAS ASKING SIMPLY THAT BECAUSE YOU RECEIVED A COPY OF IT AND SAID SHE WAS SIMPLY ASKING FURTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE THAT IT BE INTERPRETATED AS WRITTEN, RIGHT? SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION.
ISN'T THAT WHAT SHE ASKED FOR IN PART OF HER REMEDY REQUEST? I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO POINT MY ATTENTION TO HER GRIEVANCE.
UM, JUST AS A MATTER OF FACT, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE IT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME.
I MEAN, BASED ON THE, YOUR MEMORY OF THE MEETING THAT YOU HAD WITH HER, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS HER REQUEST.
I, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE IT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS HER REQUEST.
SO IN TALKING ABOUT YOUR CONCERN WITH, YOU KNOW, FIGURING OUT AN ELIGIBILITY DATE AND WHAT A NIGHTMARE THAT WOULD BE, UH, IF THE BOARD WERE IN THIS RULE TO MEAN
[01:25:01]
THAT SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION MEANS FOLLOWING SIX MONTHS, FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ENTIRE EXAMINATION, RIGHT, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS THAT WOULDN'T BE THAT DIFFICULT TO CALCULATE SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY DONE, WOULD IT, I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CONFIRM THAT WITH, WITH OUR TEAM, THAT THAT GATHERS, THAT GATHERS THAT DATA.UM, SO I CAN'T DIRECTLY ANSWER, ANSWER TO YOU THE DIRECT IMPLICATIONS OR THE COMPLEXITY, UM, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED IF THE BOARD WERE TO, UM, SUPPORT SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF 4.3 B.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WITH, UH, SERGEANT CORT, IF THE BOARD WERE TO HAVE INTERPRETED THIS, THAT, THAT WAY, THEN WE WOULD'VE GONE SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF PHASE TWO OF THE EXAM.
PROVIDED THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S HER REQUEST AS, AS IT'S LAID OUT IN, IN THE GRIEVANCE.
UM, I'D HAVE TO GO AGAIN, GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT.
AND SO ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY DATE WOULD SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE LAST DAY, RIGHT, OF THE PHASE TWO ADMINISTRATION, SO WHAT IS SIX MONTHS AFTER THAT PARTICULAR DATE? THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE CALCULATION, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ISN'T IT? I, I WOULD THINK SO.
AND I CONCEDE ON ONE THING, UH, YOU HAD AN ISSUE, I THINK, AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT POSSIBLY ALL OF THESE PREVIOUS PEOPLE COMING FORWARD NOW THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT EARLIER, RIGHT, COR CORRECT.
BUT THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T FILE A GRIEVANCE, DID THEY? UM, IT DEPENDS.
I MEAN, THAT'S A, THAT'S SOMEWHAT LACK QUESTION AS, AS, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, BESIDES SERGEANT CORT.
LET'S STICK WITH THIS PARTICULAR HEARING.
I KNOW WE'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE FOLLOWING THIS, BUT THIS PARTICULAR HEARING, SERGEANT CORT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SIGNED THE GRIEVANCE THAT SHE SUBMITTED.
RIGHT? THE GRIEVANCE THAT WE'RE HEARING NOW IS UNDERSIGNED BY OR AND SUBMITTED BY SERGEANT OKAY.
AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT HAVE FILED A GRIEVANCE, UH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR EXAM.
THAT THAT DEADLINE IS UP ACCORDING TO THE CITY PERSONNEL RULES, ISN'T IT, TO 10 BUSINESS DAYS.
IS THAT CORRECT? FOR, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CONVERSATION? YES.
SO LET'S GO TO, UH, GIMME ONE SECOND.
I GO UP TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS HERE.
UH, LET'S GO DOWN TO EXHIBIT FOUR.
AND THIS IS GONNA BE SERGEANT MARTINEZ, UH, GRIEVANCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
IF YOU'LL SCROLL DOWN, UH, THE THIRD LINEUP FROM THE BOTTOM THERE ON PAGE ONE, AND, AND SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPH FOUR.
DO YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS FURTHERMORE? WHAT PAGE ARE WE ON AGAIN? WE'RE ON, I THINK, OH, I'M SORRY.
PAGE TWO OF THREE, PARAGRAPH NUMBER FOUR.
I, SOMETHING'S HAPPENING WITH MY, JUST JUST GIVE ME A SECOND.
I DON'T MIND YOU MIND READING IT TO ME WHILE I GET THERE.
FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, IT SAYS SIMPLY FURTHERMORE, I REQUEST THAT THIS INTERPRETATION BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED TO ALL FUTURE PROMOTIONAL EXAMS. DO YOU SEE THAT? I DON'T SEE IT, BUT OKAY.
SHE SAID, I'M NOT, NOT GETTING ON THE SAME PAGE, SO SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH MY HERE.
SO THAT'S WHAT SHE WRITES IN HERE, AND I'M QUOTING IT.
FURTHERMORE, I REQUEST THIS INTERPRETATION BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED TO ALL FUTURE PROMOTIONAL EXAMS. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE'S NOT ASKING YOU GUYS TO GO BACK ON ANYTHING.
SHE'S NOT MENTIONING ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN HERE TO SAY, WELL, WE NEED TO GO BACK NOW TO EVERYBODY WHO MAY HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THIS INTERPRETATION OVER ALL THESE YEARS.
YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T FILE A GRIEVANCE.
AND IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, A TRAGEDY IN THAT SENSE THAT PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO PROMOTED RELIED ON THIS.
BUT THOSE PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T FILE GRIEVANCES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK RETROACTIVELY,
[01:30:01]
DO YOU, UM, BASED ON YOUR REQUEST THAT SHE'S READ? UM, AGAIN, I DON'T, AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IF THE BOARD WAS TO MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION TODAY WHAT OUR OBLIGATION WOULD BE.NOW, YOUR QUESTION IS ABOUT SHE'S REQUESTED, IF SHE'S REQUESTED SIMPLY, UM, THAT IT BE APPLIED TO FUTURE INSTANCES, THEN THAT'S HER REQUEST.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT HER REQUEST STATES.
SO ASSUMING THE BOARD AGREES THAT THE RULES SHOULD BE INTERPRETED THE WAY THAT SHE REQUESTS, THEY'RE NOT GONNA ENTERTAIN A REQUEST FOR REMEDY.
I, UH, THAT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE NOT REQUEST, ENTERTAIN A REQUEST FOR A REMEDY THAT SHE SPECIFICALLY DID NOT ASK FOR.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR GRIEVANCE AND MY EXPERIENCE AS, AS THIS HEARING, CORRECT? UH, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE CITY.
OKAY, MR. PEACOCK, DO YOU REST? THE CITY RESTS.
AND I ASSUME BOTH PARTIES CLOSE AT THIS POINT.
AND LET ME ASK, UH, DO YOU DESIRE TO MAKE CLOSING STATEMENTS? UH, YES, MR. CHAIR.
OKAY, MR. CASEY, PLEASE GO FORWARD AND, AND, UH, TRY TO MAKE A BRIEF IF WE CAN.
I'LL, UH, MR. CHAIR BOARD MEMBERS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THE OPINION, THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
I MEAN, WE'VE GOT ADMISSION FROM THE CITY, BOTH, BOTH MR. PEACOCK AND MR. DAVIS, THAT THIS LIEUTENANT EXAM CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS.
THERE IS, OF COURSE, A WRITTEN PORTION OF THE EXAMINATION, AND THERE IS AN ASSESSMENT PORTION OF THE EXAMINATION.
AND THEY'RE CLEARLY LAID OUT IN TWO DIFFERENT PARTS ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
AND THE RULE CAN'T BE MORE CLEAR HERE.
AND LET'S FOCUS IN ON THE FACT THAT IT SAYS THE EXAMINATION ON THIS ANNOUNCEMENT THAT IT WAS REFERRING TO THIS LIEUTENANT EXAMINATION, WHICH AGAIN, CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS.
IT'S OF NO CONSEQUENCE THAT YOU HAVE PASS FIRST TO GET TO THE SECOND ONE.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.
EXAMINATION CONSISTING OF TWO PARTS CANNOT BE BY DEFINITION CONSIDERED ADMINISTERED UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF BOTH OF THOSE PARTS.
THIS RULE DOES NOT MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR ANYTHING LIKE, IT DOESN'T SAY SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN PORTION OF AN EXAMINATION.
IT DOESN'T SAY SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION.
UNLESS THIS, OR UNLESS THAT, OR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS, IT STATES SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION.
MS. CORT ISN'T ASKING THE CITY TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS.
SHE'S NOT ASKING FOR CHAOS OR A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE.
I MEAN, I I, THE THEME HERE WAS CONSISTENCY.
THAT THERE'S AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CITY AND THE CITY CAN'T POINT TO ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY'VE HAD TO ADMIT THAT THE RULE READS AS IT'S WRITTEN.
UM, BUT THERE'S A MISINTERPRETATION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON HISTORICALLY, SO THAT WE HAVE CONSISTENCY.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY.
UH, I CAN RESPECT THAT, UH, BOTH LOGISTICALLY FINANCIALLY FOR FINANCIAL, A MYRIAD REASONS WHY YOU'D WANNA BE CONSISTENT.
BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS RULE HAS BEEN MISAPPLIED AND MISINTERPRETED, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LONG IT'S BEEN GOING ON.
YES, YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THIS THIS WAY FOR QUITE SOME TIME 'CAUSE YOU WANNA BE CONSISTENT, BUT YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT INCORRECTLY.
AND ALL SERGEANT CORTEZ IS ASKING, IS FOR THIS RULE TO BE APPLIED AS WRITTEN THAT, THAT THE LANGUAGE BEING INTERPRETED WITH ITS PLAIN MEANING SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, OKAY? MR. PEACOCK AND I BOTH TOOK THE BAR EXAM.
WE WEREN'T COMPLETED WITH THAT BAR EXAM UNTIL WE FINISHED EVERY COMPONENT OF THAT BAR EXAM.
THE, THIS LIEUTENANT EXAMINATION,
[01:35:01]
I MEAN, YOU CAN LOOK UP ADMINISTRATION, THE WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY CAN'T BE COMPLETED.IT CANNOT BE ADMINISTERED OR CONSIDERED ADMINISTERED UNTIL BOTH PARTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
SO WHAT MS. CORTEZ IS ASKING IS FOR THE BOARD TO ORDER THAT THIS RULE BE APPLIED.
IF THE CITY WANTS TO CHANGE THE RULE, THEN WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND I WILL POINT OUT IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY, THAT EVEN THE, UH, SENIOR CORPORAL EXAM, WHICH ONLY CONSISTS OF A WRITTEN PORTION, BUT THAT'S, THAT IS THE ENTIRE EXAMINATION IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE.
BUT THAT ELIGIBILITY DATE ON THAT ONE IS CALCULATED FROM AFTER THAT WRITTEN EXAM IS GIVEN.
SO, IN FACT, IN AN ATTEMPT TO BE CONSISTENT, THEY'RE BEING INCONSISTENT.
IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE PORTION OF THAT EXAM THAT IS THE ENTIRETY OF THAT EXAM, JUST AS BOTH PHASE TWO AND PHASE ONE COMPRISE OF THE ENTIRETY OF THIS EXAM.
SO, MR. MARTINEZ ASKING THE BOARD, AND I'M ASKING YOU TO SIMPLY HAVE THE CITY START INTERPRETING, INTERPRETING THIS RULE AS IT'S WRITTEN.
SHE'S NOT ASKING FOR ANY RETROACTIVE ACTION.
SHE WOULD LIKE, SHE WAS ELIGIBLE AND THIS THING WAS GIVEN, SHE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE IT.
SHE FILED A GRIEVANCE AND THAT'S WHAT SHE WANTS.
AND, UH, WE URGE THE BOARD TO, UH, SIDE WITH HER ON THIS AND ORDER THAT.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I WILL REST.
MR. PEACOCK MAY PLEASE THE COURT OPPOSING COUNSEL, MR. THE BOARD, I'LL KEEP THIS PRETTY CONCISE BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT OF THE SAME THINGS REPEATED A LOT TODAY.
UM, SO JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CONCISENESS, THIS IS ABOUT CONSISTENCY OVER CHAOS.
LIKE YOU HEARD, THIS IS AN EXAM WITH TWO PARTS, BUT IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE ONE EXAMINATION.
YOU ALSO CANNOT TAKE THE SECOND PART WITHOUT THE, UH, WITHOUT THE F, WITHOUT COMPLETING THE FIRST.
SO THE FIRST MUST BE ADMINISTERED IN ORDER TO HAVE A SECOND.
NOW, I WANNA POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS.
IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT ITSELF, IT SAID THE EXAMINATION, NOT AN EXAMINATION, THE EXAMINATION, THE EXAMINATION, THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION, AS YOU HEARD, TESTIMONY HERE TODAY IS, WAS ADMINISTERED ON JULY THE EIGHTH OF 2025.
THEREFORE, THAT IS THE TIME IN WHICH WE SHOULD BE DRAWING THE LINE.
NOW, I WANNA POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE ACTUALLY, WITH, WITH, WITH REGARD TO THE SENIOR CORPORAL ARGUMENT.
MR. CASEY, I BELIEVE HE WAS ACTUALLY POINTING OUT THAT THE CITY IS BEING CONSISTENT, WHETHER YOU'RE A SECRET TESTING FOR SENIOR CORPORAL OR WHETHER YOU'RE TESTING FOR LIEUTENANT, WE CALCULATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION HAS BEEN DONE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE, AN ADMINISTRATION OF THIS EXAMINATION.
BY, BY, UH, BY THE RULES, SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THAT, THAT ADMINISTRATION, THE LINE CAN BE DRAWN, THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE.
AND THEN, AND THEN ANOTHER, UM, ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY OPPOSING COUNSEL.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BAR EXAM.
IF YOU'RE UNFAMILIAR, THERE ARE TYPICALLY THREE OR FOUR PARTS, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU'RE TAKING.
UM, BUT THE THING IS, IS THAT EACH OF THOSE PARTS HAVE THEIR OWN NAME.
SO THE ESSAY RESPONSE PORTION IS THE ESSAY RESPONSE PORTION.
THE MULTIPLE CHOICE IS THE MULTIPLE CHOICE.
UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER THAN THEM, THEY'RE ESCAPING ME.
MY, UH, MY BAR PREP INSTRUCTOR WILL GET WON ALWAYS, UH, PROBABLY, UH, UH, ANGRY AT ME SOMEWHERE IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE VOID THERE.
BUT, UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOSE HAVE THEIR OWN NAMES, JUST IN THE SAME WAY THAT AR LIEUTENANT EXAM HAS THEIR OWN NAMES.
THERE IS THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND THEN THE ASSESSMENT CENTER EXAMINATION ASSESSMENT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN, WHEN, UM, THE EXAMINATION IS DONE FOR PART ONE, THAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE, OF THE, OF AN EXAMINATION.
AN EXAMINATION THAT IS A GATEWAY TO THE SEC, TO THE SECOND PART, UM, THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S JUST NEEDS TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE INITIAL DIMINISHMENT POINT.
AND I, AND I, AND I KIND OF DISAGREE, I THINK THAT THERE, THIS WILL KIND OF OPEN THE FLOOD GATES BECAUSE IF WE ARE, IF WE ARE ALLOWING THE DATE TO BE CHANGED ONCE, WHAT'S, TO STOP IT FROM BEING CHANGED AGAIN.
AND I THINK THAT THE LINE, THE LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A, THIS IS A LINE, UM, THAT'S, THAT DERIVES ITS FAIRNESS FROM ITS CONSISTENCY.
AND WE ASK THE BOARD TO CONTINUE TO APPLY THAT CONSISTENCY, UH, BOTH IN THIS CASE AND IN THE CASE GOING FORWARD.
WE ASK THAT THE BOARD FIND AGAINST, UH, THE GRIEVANCE IN THIS, IN THIS CASE, AND AGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATION PUT FORTH BY JARED DAVIS.
AND THANKS TO THE WITNESSES, SERGEANT MARTINEZ AND LIEUTENANT.
WE APPRECIATE THEIR PARTICIPATION TODAY.
UM, BOARD, I'M GONNA TAKE THIS OUTTA ORDER.
UH, IF, IF WE FOLLOW OUR, UH, EXACT AGENDA LISTING POST OR POSTING, WE WOULD NOW HAVE THE SECOND HEARING AND MAKE A DECISION LATER ON.
I'M GONNA ASK FOR YOUR INDULGE US THAT WE, UH, MOVE
[01:40:01]
UP TO MOVE UP SECTION SIX ACTION ITEMS. PART A, TAKE ACTION FROM THE GRIEVANCE OF APPEAL HEARING OF CRYSTAL MARTINEZ.AND SO WE'LL DO THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME SO EVERYBODY ELSE DOESN'T HAVE TO.
MS. MARTINEZ AND MR. CASEY, DON SIT AROUND FOR THE NEXT TWO OR THREE HOURS, UH, BOARD, IF IT'S OKAY, I'M GONNA START WITH MY OBSERVATIONS, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OBJECTION.
UM, TO ME, THIS IS A, THIS IS, UH, KIND OF A CLASSIC CASE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.
HERE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE, OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
UM, I, I THINK INDIVIDUALS INTERPRETATIONS OF 'EM ARE, ARE FINE.
I THINK THE PRIOR PRACTICES OF THE, OF THE CITY GIVE US, GIVE US GUIDANCE.
UH, BUT ULTIMATELY I THINK THE, THE DECISION IS UP TO US AS, AS THE BOARD TO INTERPRET 4.3 B.
AND, UM, WHEN I, IN THE OPPOSITE LANGUAGE, IS THOSE CANDIDATES WHO WILL MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT, EXCUSE ME, ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL RANK PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE EXAM, THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION, AND THE WORD THERE, THE WORDS, THERE ARE AN EXAMINATION.
UM, I WAS PART OF A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT ALSO LOOKED AT THE RULES REVISION THAT TOOK US ABOUT THREE YEARS.
AND I THINK THE, THE, THE, THE CIVIL, THE ADOPTED, THE AMENDED CIVIL SERVICE RULES WERE ADOPTED IN JULY AND JUNE OF 23, AS I RECALL.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE SOME MISINTERPRETATION.
I I DO GIVE WAY TO HOW, HOW THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS SECTION DID NOT CHANGE, UH, EITHER, UH, FROM THE, FROM THE PRIOR CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
UM, I GIVE, I GIVE WAY TO KIND OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OR AGENCY INTERPRETATION THAT HAS, THAT HAS VALUE.
UM, AND, AND TO ME, THE, THE WORD IS THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION.
AND THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION IS AN EXAMINATION.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT WRITTEN TEST IS A COMPONENT OF THE AN OF THE EXAMINATION.
UM, THAT ALSO PROVIDES A HARD AND FASTED DATE BY WISH TO MEASURE THE, THE SIX MONTH ISSUE.
UM, IF WE PUT THAT ON THE BACK END, I I, I DO BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA WIND UP WITH LOTS OF, UH, DIFFERENT DATES.
IF SOMEONE, IF SOMEONE TAKES THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND PASSES IS ON MILITARY LEAVE, THAT COULD, THAT COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT DATE.
UH, THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD WOULD BE, WOULD BE EXTENDED BY MAYBE A YEAR BECAUSE THEY'RE ON MILITARY LEAVE, BUT THEY'RE ON FMLA LEAVE.
F-M-L-A-F-M-L-A LEAVE CAN BE, UH, UH, THERE, THERE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH, UH, YOU MIGHT BE ON FMLA FMLA LEAVE OR NOT FMLA LEAVE, UH, RELIGIOUS ISSUES PROBABLY DON'T PRESENT QUITE AS, AS MUCH OF AN ISSUE TIME-WISE.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT THAT AND LOOK AT THIS RULE AND I, THE, THE, THE EXPRESS WORDING OF THE RULE PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION, THE WORD EXAMINATION IS DEFINED IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
IT MEANS A TEST OR ASSESSMENT.
SO I THINK WE ALL WOULD AGREE THAT THE TEST, THE WRITTEN TEST IS AN EXAMINATION.
AND THAT IS THAT TO, TO ME, THAT IS HOW WE MEASURE THE SIX MONTH PERIOD.
I AGREE WITH MR. PEACOCK'S CONTENTION AND MR. DAVIS'S CONTENTION THAT WE INTRODUCE A LOT OF IN, UH, A LOT OF DOUBT, A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN WE START CALCULATING WHAT ARE BY FROM WHAT, FROM WHAT DATE DO WE CALCULATE IF, IF, IF IT'S AT THE END OF THE PROCESS, YOU DON'T GET TO THE END OF THE PROCESSING UNLESS YOU PASS THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION, THE WRITTEN TEST.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I'M, I'M NOT CONCERNED IF WE NEED TO, UH, CHANGE THE WORDING AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
SO BE IT WHEN, LET'S CHANGE THE WORDING AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT IF THAT, IF THAT HELPS CLARIFY THE, THE, THE, UH, CLARIFY THE MATTER.
BUT OUR ROLE IS NOT TO INTERPRET THE ANNOUNCEMENT, NOT TO AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH MR. DAVIS'S INTERPRETATION.
OUR ROLE IS TO LOOK AT THE RULE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THE GRIEVANCE HAS MERIT UNDER THE RULES.
AND WE ARE THE ONES CHARGED WITH INTERPRETING THE RULES.
SO MY VOTE IS GOING TO BE TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE BECAUSE I THINK THE OPERATIVE DATE IS THE DATE OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
AND THE MEASUREMENT OF TIME IS BASED ON THAT, NOT ON THE BACK END OF THE ASSESSMENT CENTER.
[01:45:01]
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, ARE YOU SAYING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE END? 'CAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE CONFUSION.WELL, AT, AT THE BEGINNING, THE, THE WRITTEN TEST DATE IS THE DATE, THE WRITTEN TEST DATE AT THE BEGINNING.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE.
WELL, UH, THIS IS BRIDGET MITCHELL.
I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, YOU SAYING THAT THIS GRIEVANCE DOES NOT APPLY OR HAVE MERIT IN THE RULES THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS CURTIS.
PIERRE, I WOULD, UH, I I WOULD FALL ON THE, UH, ON BEING CONSISTENT AND, AND, AND NOT, UH, GOING FORWARD, UH, OPENING THIS UP WOULD BE, UH, ALLOWING MUCH CONFUSION AND WOULD IMPACT, I THINK, IN A NEGATIVE MANNER WOULD IMPACT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
SO, UH, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT REGARD.
I THINK MR. CASEY MADE A VERY GOOD POINT WHEN HE SAID THE CONSISTENCY OF INCONSISTENCY.
UH, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME GOOD POINTS MADE ABOUT THE, THE EXAM AND AN EXAM.
SOMEONE RELATED THAT TO THE BEING THE SAME THING AS IN LAW SCHOOL.
YOU KNOW, THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE A TEST, YOU HAVE TO TAKE A SERIES OF TESTS.
AND I, YOU KNOW, COMING INTO THIS MEETING, I WASN'T SURE HOW I FELT, AND I'M STILL NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THAT MR. CASEY MADE SOME VERY COMPELLING ARGUMENTS.
OH, I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, MS. RIVER AT ALL.
I MEAN, HE, MS. CASEY DID MAKE SOME, SOME, SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS.
I THINK THOUGH THE WORDING OF THE RULES RE RESULTS IN A, IN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION THAT HE, HE PRESENTS.
AND I MEAN, THE WORDS THAT SIMPLY NEED TO BE CHANGED IS THE WORD, THE AS IN THE EXAM VERSUS AN EXAM, OR YOU ADD AN S TO EXAM.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT CHANGE.
UH, SO THAT DOESN'T MAKE EITHER ONE MORE RIGHT.
JUST, IT, IT, IT FUELS THE CONFUSION.
BUT I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARDS MR. CASEY'S ARGUMENT.
WELL, I MEAN, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION.
THE ONLY, THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ME IS THE WORD DOES IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
WE'RE NOT INTERPRETING THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
THE WORD ANN IS IN THE RULES AND WE'RE INTERPRETING THE RULES.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I, THAT'S WHERE I GO.
SO IF THERE'S AN ERROR IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT, SO BE IT.
WE CAN CORRECT THAT AT A, AT LATER, AT A LATER DATE IF WE FEEL IT NEEDS TO BE MORE BE CLARIFIED.
BUT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, TODAY, WE'RE NOT CHARGED WITH, WITH GIVING SUGGESTIONS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF THE PD ABOUT ADMINISTERING THEIR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
WE'RE LOOKING AT 4.3 B AND MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I COME DOWN ON THAT.
UH, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOOK AT THE ANNOUNCEMENT TO PROVIDE SOME FURTHER CLARIFICATION TO ELIMINATE TO, TO AT LEAST TO ASSIST IN, IN ELIMINATING ANY AMBIGUITY.
LET ME ASK, IS THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OR IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION? I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE POINT.
SO, IF A PERSON DIDN'T TAKE THE ASSESSMENT, WOULD, WOULD THEY BE CONSIDERED DONE WITH THE TEST? WELL, THEY WOULDN'T GO ON ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT CENTER.
I MEAN, SO SOMEONE CAN, SOMEONE CAN, CAN SKIP THE ASSESSMENT AND, AND BE DEFINED AS COMPLETING THE TEST.
NO, YOU WOULDN'T BE, YOU WILL, YOU WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE.
'CAUSE IT'S OKAY PERCENT, 35% WRITTEN, 65% ASSESSMENT.
IF YOU DON'T TAKE THE ASSESSMENT PORTION, UNLESS YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE, THEN, THEN YOU, YOU'LL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE, YOU WON'T GO ON THE ELIGIBILITY LIST BECAUSE YOU DID NOT COMPLETE THE PROCESS.
AND THAT PROCESS, WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE WORD ASSESSMENT, THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE PROCESS.
AND WHAT I'M GETTING IS THAT IS PART OF THE, THE TEST, JUST BASED ON EVEN THIS SHORT CONVERSATION I SAW CURTIS.
CURTIS, WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING? 'CAUSE YOU'RE MUTED.
[01:50:02]
I MEAN, IF THE TEST IS, IF THE ASSESSMENT ISN'T TAKEN, THEN THE TEST IS NOT COMPLETE.WELL, YES, YOU'VE NOT, YOU, YOU'VE NOT COMPLETED 65% OF THE TEST IF YOU DON'T TAKE THAT ASSESSMENT.
I'M ASKING, DO WE HAVE A MOTION NOW? THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO, UH, ACCEPT THE DECISION THAT, UH, UH, SAID, DENIED A GRIEVANCE IN THIS REGARD.
MR. PEER MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE BY, UH, UH, SERGEANT MARTINEZ.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? I SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY.
ALL IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE GRIEVANCE OF SERGEANT MARTINEZ.
SO THE MOTION TO DENY CARRIES ON A THREE TO ONE VOTE.
MR. CASEY, SERGEANT MARTINEZ, THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING IF YOU WISH.
UM, UM, LET ME ASK, UM, BOARD, I KNOW WE HAVE ANOTHER HEARING COMING UP.
YOU NEED TO TAKE A SHORT RECESS? YES.
WOULD THAT BE OKAY FOR EVERYONE? YES.
UH, THE TIME IS NOW 1150, SO WE'LL TAKE A RECESS TILL 1155 AND WE WILL THEN COMMENCE WITH OUR SECOND GRIEVANCE APPEAL HEARING IN THE DAY, UM, FROM MR. FIGUEROA AND OTHERS.
SORRY WE TOOK A LITTLE BIT LONGER THERE.
UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK A REAL QUICK QUESTION JUST FOR MY RECORD HERE? YES.
THERE IS ONE, UH, PERSON ON MY SCREEN NAMED DANIEL MOORE.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS, BUT I NEED TO, FOR THE APPEARANCES, I NEED TO KNOW WHO THAT IS.
DANIEL MOORE IS THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WHO'S ASSIGNED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
AND I WANNA CHECK, I SEE MR. PIERRE, MS. AND MS. MITCHELL, IS SHE ON? I DON'T SEE HER.
IS SHE ON THE SCREEN? YES, SHE IS.
UH, WE'RE GONNA ITEM FOUR B NOW CONDUCT A GRIEVANCE APPEAL HEARING OF OMAR FIGUEROA, BENJAMIN O. RYAN SWAIN, BENJAMIN, JOSE G**O, UH, REYNOLD, REYNOLD MCGEE OR MAYBE AND JESSE RODRIGUEZ IN, THEY CLAIM THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, RULE FOUR, THREE, WARRANT SERVICE CERTIFICATIONS AND PROMOTIONS DEPARTMENT, SUBSECTION B, COMPLETION OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
AND I THINK WE'RE READY, MR. CIDER.
I MEAN, WE GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS.
UM, I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, YOU'VE BEEN HERE LISTENING TO THE OTHER ONE, TO WHAT EXTENT, UH, WE'LL GO FORWARD WITH WHATEVER YOU, YOU WANNA DO AN OPENING STATEMENT, FEEL FREE TO.
I, WHO, WHO'S ASKING? I, THAT'S ME.
HELLO? HI, MR. OKAY, THANK YOU UMSPEAKING.
MR. C**K, I, I HAVE AN INITIAL MATTER BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH THIS ONE.
UM, I WANNA BE COGNIZANT OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL OF ALL PARTIES THAT HAVE GRIEVED HERE, BUT, UM, I FIRST WANNA POINT OUT THAT I BELIEVE JOHN SNYDER AND BEN CASEY BOTH REPRESENT PEOPLE IN THIS GRIEVANCE HEARING.
SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT WORKING OUT WHO'S GONNA DO WHAT HERE, BUT OVERALL, I MEAN, BEING COGNIZANT OF BOTH THE, THE RIGHTS OF THE, OF THE APPELLANTS, OF THE GRIEVANCE, AS WELL AS THE TIME OF, UH, AND THE, AND THE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY OF THIS BOARD.
UM, THIS HEARING ISN'T ON THE EXACT SAME ISSUE THAT WE JUST HEARD.
UM, OH, ABOUT TWO HOURS OF TESTIMONY ON, NOT THAT, NOT THAT I'M ASKING TO, TO DISMISS ON, ON PLAIN PRECLUSION CONCLUSION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I AM ASKING IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN, UH, JUST SO THAT WE'RE NOT HERE, SITTING HERE HEARING MORE OF THE SAME, TALKING
[01:55:01]
ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORD, THE, AND THE WORD.AND IF THERE IS, IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A CONCISE HEARING.
I HAVE SPOKEN TO MY CLIENTS, REYNOLD, MAYBE, AND JESSE RODRIGUEZ, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO DROP THEIR GRIEVANCES WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THAT WOULD NO, THERE, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR US TO OBJECT TO THAT IF YOU WISH TO DO THAT, MR. CASEY.
I HAVE, I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH BOTH OF THOSE.
UH, THERE, THE ONLY OTHER MATTER, AND JOHN, YOU AND I, I DIDN'T, WHEN I SAW YOU ON SUNDAY, DIDN'T, UH, REALIZE THIS, BUT, UH, GUERRERO TOLD ME THAT YOU WERE REPRESENTING HIM, CORRECT? BECAUSE HE, HE'S A DUAL MEMBER.
AND SO, UH, I TOLD HIM YESTERDAY THAT HE COULD GO FORWARD WITH YOU.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? YES.
SO I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK FOR GUERRERO.
UH, THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO THAT I REPRESENTED, AND BOTH OF THEM HAVE AGREED TO DROP THEIR GRIEVANCE.
THAT'S, UH, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE MATTERS WITH YOU THEN.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR PROFESSIONALISM TODAY.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY AGAIN, MR. SNYDER, LET'S MAKE SURE I, WHO YOU REPRESENT, MR. FIGUEROA, CORRECT? YES.
FIGUEROA, O SWAIN, HONOR, AND GUERRERO.
AND I'VE BEEN HANDED YOUR POSITION STATEMENT OF WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST.
I THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED EARLIER.
I THINK THIS IS THE SAME DOCUMENT, EXCUSE ME, WITH YOUR EXHIBITS ATTACHED.
SO I, I SUBMITTED, UH, I THINK IT'S 28 PAGES OF, LEMME SEE.
UH, THAT'S THE POSITION STATEMENT WITH THE EXHIBITS.
UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ADMIT THOSE.
HEY, MR. PETER, ANY ATTENTION TO THEM? TO THOSE? I'M LOOKING AT A PACKET OF 15 HERE.
JOHN, ARE YOU TA ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AS INCLUDED IN THAT 28 PAGES? YEAH, THEY'RE THE, UH, LISTED IN THE EXHIBITS.
YEAH, IF IT'S THE, IF IT'S THE SUBPOENA DOCS AND THIS 15 PAGE THING, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS.
IF YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO MY, TO MY BINDER, I DON'T.
BOTH SETS OF THE DOC OF EXHIBITS ARE ADMITTED THEN INTO EVIDENCE.
ANYTHING FURTHER BEFORE WE COMMENCE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
YOU WANNA OPEN ANY STATEMENT? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE WAITING FOR? YES.
SO I'M REPRESENTING, UH, FIVE DALLAS POLICE SERGEANTS.
THEY WERE ALL PROMOTED TO THE RANK OF SERGEANT MARCH 3RD, 2021.
SO, UH, WE ARE, AND AGAIN, I DID LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE HEARING PROCEEDING, UH, THIS HEARING.
AND SO I'M TRY NOT TO, UH, GO BACK OVER SOME OF THE SAME MATERIAL, IF I CAN AVOID IT.
HOWEVER, UH, IS THEIR GRIEVANCES CONCERNING THE SAME MATTER, CONCERNING THE SAME CIVIL SERVICE RULE? UH, IN THAT RULE, THE, THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THAT THE CANDIDATES THAT ARE, UH, IF THEY'RE, THEY CAN BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION IF THEY'RE GONNA REACH THE, THE PROMOTIONAL RANK, UH, IF THEY'VE REACHED THE FIVE YEARS, UH, PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAM.
ALRIGHT? SO IN THIS CASE, ALL FIVE WERE SUM SUMMARILY REJECTED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, UH, FROM TAKING THE TEST.
AND THE REASON THEY WERE REJECTED WAS BECAUSE THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE GONNA USE THE WRITTEN EXAM, UH, AS THE, AS THE MARKER FOR, UH, THE POINT IN WHICH THEY HAD TO BE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF PROMOTING.
NOW, WHEN THE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, 4.3 B, UH, I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, UH, THE PURPOSE OF 4.3 IS LANGUAGE.
[02:00:01]
CODE CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE.WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, AND I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF 4.3 B WAS TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE TEST THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE IF THEY HAD TO HAVE FIVE YEARS IN RANK, UH, BY, YOU KNOW, BY, BY AT, AT THE TIME OF THE EXAM.
SO THE PURPOSE OF IT WAS TO OPEN THE DOOR TO OTHER, UH, MORE SERGEANTS TO TAKE THE PROMOTIONAL TEST TO PROMOTE TO LIEUTENANT.
HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CREATE A CHAOTIC SITUATION.
IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE IF YOU READ, FINISH READING 4.3 B, YOU'LL SEE THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN ANY OF THEM PROMOTE TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT UNTIL THEY'VE REACHED THE FIVE YEAR MARK IN, IN, IN THE RANK OF SERGEANT.
ALL THE RULE DOES IS ALLOW MORE CANDIDATES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXAMINATION.
AND THE EXAMINATION IS NOT THE WRITTEN TEST, THE EXAMINATION IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE EXAMINATION.
I THINK THAT'S BEEN MADE CLEAR.
IT'S ALSO MADE CLEAR JUST IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT ITSELF, THAT, WHICH IS ON PAGE 16 OF, OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT I'VE COMMITTED.
SO AGAIN, IF THE, ANOTHER PRINCIPLE OF CODE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IS IF, IF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD WANTED TO PUT, UH, IN THEIR RULES, A, THAT IT HAS TO BE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE WRITTEN TEST DATE OR THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEST, THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
THEY DIDN'T DO THAT, BUT THEY, THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT HAS TO BE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION.
SO BY NOT THE EXAMINATION AND EXAMINATION.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE PAGE 18 OF MY DOCUMENTS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S TWO ADMINISTRATIONS OF EXAMINATIONS GOING ON.
THERE'S ONE ON JULY 8TH, 2025, AND THERE'S ONE ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO, SO OUR POSITION IN THE GRIEVANCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SEPTEMBER 15TH ADMINISTRATION IS THE DATE THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE USED TO DETERMINE THIS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE LAST ADMINISTRATION OF ANY EXAMINATION ON THE OVERALL EXAM FOR PROMOTION TO LIEUTENANT, BUT INSTEAD GOING AGAINST THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE, THEY'VE MADE THE RULE IN A WAY TO SHUT OUT MORE PEOPLE FROM JUST TAKING THE TEST.
NONE OF NONE OF THIS AFFECTS WHEN, WHEN THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO PROMOTE, BECAUSE THAT'S SET IN STONE.
THEY CANNOT PROMOTE UNTIL THEY'VE ATTAINED FIVE YEARS IN THE RANK.
SO THE, MY, MY CLIENTS ARE OF THE, UH, TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE 4.3 B WAS MISINTERPRETED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY DECIDED TO USE THE EARLIER DATE, THEREBY FORECLOSING THE, THEIR PARTICIPATION IN JUST THE PROMOTIONAL EXAM ITSELF.
SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE INCLUSIVE, WHICH IS THE CLEARLY, I THINK WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE IS, IT'S TO BE MORE INCLUSIVE, TO ALLOW MORE PARTICIPANTS TO ENGAGE IN THE TESTING, TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PROMOTE ONCE THEY'VE GOT FIVE YEARS IN SERVICE AS A SERGEANT.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA, THIS DOESN'T CREATE CHAOS, THIS DOESN'T CREATE CONFUSION.
THIS IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE RULE IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
HEY, PLEASE, THE COURT OPPOSING COUNSEL, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, YOU'VE HEARD ME TALK A LOT TODAY AND, AND UNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT, SO BEAR WITH ME.
UM, BUT WE JUST HAD A, A TRIAL ON THIS EXACT SAME ISSUE, UM, AND THAT GRIEVANCE WAS DENIED.
AND THE REASON IT WAS DENIED IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THE RULE, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR, SIX MONTHS AFTER AN EXAMINATION, SIX MONTHS AFTER AN EXAMINATION, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
THE EXAMINATION, THE AND EXAMINATION TOOK PLACE ON JULY THE SEVENTH OF THIS YEAR.
SO THEREFORE, THE DEADLINE IS JANUARY THE SEVENTH OF, I MEAN, SORRY, JULY THE EIGHTH.
IT'D BE JANUARY 8TH OF THE COMING YEAR.
UM, THAT IS WHAT THE BOARD DECIDED IN THE LAST TRIAL.
AND, AND, AND I AGREE WITH IT, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THE, WHAT THE
[02:05:01]
ANNOUNCEMENT SAYS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL, UM, AND, AND I AND I PUSH BACK, UM, IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS AGAINST THE DECLARATION THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE CHAOS IN ANY WAY BECAUSE AS THE BOARD POINTED OUT IN THE FIRST TRIAL, UM, IF I, LET'S SAY THAT WE HAVE A TEST ON JANUARY 1ST.IF, IF ON AUGUST 1ST I COME BACK FROM FMLA AND RETAKE THE TEST, IF THE BOARD DOES, IF THE, UH, IF THE BOARD DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY TO REMAIN CONSISTENT AND, AND APPLY THE, UH, THE ELIGIBILITY TO THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE INITIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND EXAMINATION, AND THEN OSTENSIBLY THEN IF THE, IF THE BOARD, UM, RULES THAT, THAT THAT'S A LITTLE MORE OPEN, THEN PEOPLE WHO HAD NOT, WHO WERE NOT GONNA BE ELIGIBLE SIX MONTHS BEHIND ME AND SIX MONTHS IN FRONT OF ME ARE BOTH GONNA NOW BE ELIGIBLE.
AND DEMAND IS TAKE THE EXAM TOO, CREATING A ROLLING ISSUE THAT, THAT DESTROYS THE PURPOSE OF AN 18 MONTH, UH, AN 18 MONTH LIST.
UM, BUT YOU GUYS KNOW THIS, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR SOME EVIDENCE.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA HEAR MORE ANYTHING NEW.
WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS GRIEVANCE JUST AS YOU DID THE LAST ONE.
MR. SNYDER, YOU'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR FIRST WITNESS? YES.
I'LL CALL SERGEANT, UH, OMAR FIGUEROA.
SERGEANT FIGUEROA, YOU, UH, HAND YOU ON THE SCREEN FOR A SECOND.
UM, IS HE STILL ON THE SCREEN? OKAY.
UM, LESLIE, IF YOU CAN SWEAR, SWEAR IN TO SERGEANT FIGUEROA.
CAN YOU SEE HIM? I AM, UH, YES.
HIS NAME IS IN A BOX, BUT NO
SERGEANT FIGUEROA, WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE? YES, MA'AM.
DO YOU SWEAR, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, MA'AM.
UNLESS WE WILL CONFIRM THAT SERGEANT FIGUEROA, WE CAN SEE HIM IN HIS HAND WAS RAISED.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU, UH, YOU, YOUR POSITION RIGHT NOW AS A SERGEANT WITH DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT? CORRECT.
AND YOU'RE PART OF THE GRIEVANCE, UH, THAT HERE TODAY CONCERNING YOUR, YOU ATTEMPTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE, UH, PROMOTIONAL EXAM FOR POLICE LIEUTENANT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WERE YOU ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXAMINATION? NO, I WAS NOT.
WHY, WHY WERE YOU NOT ALLOWED AND WHO TOLD YOU YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED? UH, CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, UH, MR. JARED DAVIS, UH, UH, STATED THAT, UM, SINCE WE, UH, OR MYSELF, UH, TO SPEAK FOR MYSELF, UH, DID NOT REACH THE FIVE YEAR REQUIREMENT, UH, AS A SERGEANT THEN I WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXAM.
SO THE EXAM, UM, HAD VARIOUS DIFFERENT DATES THAT WERE, UH, WHERE THEY WERE GONNA GIVE, UH, THE WRITTEN TEST WAS GONNA BE ON JULY 8TH, 2025, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THEN THEY WERE GONNA GIVE THE ASSESSMENT CENTER IN SEPTEMBER, 2025, SEPTEMBER 15TH, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND I'LL READ YOU WHAT THE, UH, THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE STATES HERE.
IN PART, THOSE CANDIDATES WHO MEET THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL RANK PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION MAY COMPETE ON THAT EXAMINATION, BUT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE, ELIGIBLE TO, FOR PROMOTION TO THE HIGHER RANK UNTIL THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION REFERENCED IN THIS SECTION.
SO THE SERVICE REQUIREMENT TO PROMOTE TO LIEUTENANT, UH, THE SERVICE REQUIREMENT IN THE RANK SERGEANT WAS FIVE YEARS, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND LET'S SEE, SO THE PART, WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU, UM, YOU COMPLETED SOME APPLICATION TO TAKE THE TEST, CORRECT? YES.
[02:10:02]
SO YOU LOOKED AT THE REQUIREMENT, WHICH SAID THAT YOU HAD TO MEET, UM, UH, PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF EXAMINATION MAY COMPETE ON THAT EXAM.SO BASED ON THAT LANGUAGE, YOU BELIEVED YOU WERE ELIGIBLE, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY.
WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE EXAMINATION IS? IS IT, IS IT WELL BASED PARTICULAR THING? YES.
BASED ON THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, UH, DEFINITION OF EXAMINATION.
EXAMINATION IS TEST OR ASSESSMENT.
SO, UH, THE WRITTEN TEST AND THE ASSESSMENT ARE, ARE, ARE ALL ONE PART OF, ARE, ARE ALL, ALL TOGETHER ARE THE EXAMINATION.
SO YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT, THAT YOU WOULD MEET THAT CRITERIA OF, UH, THE SIX MONTHS, UH, WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXAMINATION, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND OBVIOUSLY, MR. DAVIS FELT DIFFERENTLY, CORRECT? YES.
AND SO, HAD, HAD HE AGREED WITH YOU, YOU WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THE TEST AND COMPETE FOR PROMOTION, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
WOULD WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROMOTE, REGARDLESS OF, UM, HOW YOU DID ON THE TEST, LET'S SAY YOU DID, UH, TERRIFIC ON THE TEST, YOU STILL CAN'T PROMOTE UNTIL YOU'VE SPENT FIVE YEARS AT THE RANK SERGEANT, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THAT'S, THE DEPARTMENT IS CONSISTENT ABOUT THAT IS ISN'T? IT IS ABSOLUTELY.
NOW, UM, IF YOU WERE, IF YOU WERE ALLOWED, LET'S SAY WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S BEEN A HEARING PRIOR TO OURS, BUT LET'S, IF YOU WERE ALLOWED TO, UH, PREVAIL IN THIS GRIEVANCE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT ANY OF ANY KIND OF CHAOS THAT WOULD ERUPT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT JUST BECAUSE THE, THEY'VE ALLOWED YOU TO, TO COMPETE FOR PROMOTION TO LIEUTENANT? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
AND YOU'VE HEARD THE DEPARTMENT, UH, OR THE, THE, THE, UH, UH, CITY'S ATTORNEY ARGUING ABOUT THESE PEOPLE THAT COULD COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK AND, UH, I GUESS CREATE CHAOS OR DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE LIKE THAT? I CAN RECALL MY SERGEANT EXAMINATION THAT THAT WAS PRETTY CHAOTIC.
I HAD TO TAKE IT TWICE DUE TO, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME PEOPLE, UH, GIVING THE EXAM ANSWERS OUT AND THEN THE WHOLE EXAM WAS SCRAPPED AND WE HAD TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN.
BUT AS FAR AS THIS LIEUTENANT EXAM, DO YOU KNOW ANYONE THAT'S WAITING IN THE WINGS TO CREATE PROBLEMS? SHOULD YOU PREVAIL? NO, NOT AT ALL.
SO, UM, SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE I I'M GONNA, UH, THIS IS THE LAST QUESTION I'M GONNA ASK YOU, I THINK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO TELL THE BOARD? YEAH.
UM, HAVEN'T SAT THROUGH THE FIRST HEARING AND, UH, A LITTLE BIT, UH, OBSERVING, MAKING SOME OBSERVATIONS DURING THIS HEARING.
UH, UH, AND WITH, I DON'T MEAN ANY DISRESPECT AT ALL, BUT I FEEL, UH, I QUESTION THE FAIRNESS OF THE, OF THE PROCESS WHEN ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS FALLING ASLEEP DURING TESTIMONY.
UM, SERGEANT, YOU, YOU ARE AWARE THAT PEOPLE WOULD REACH THAT FIVE-YEAR ELIGIBILITY ON A ROLLING BASIS, RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO LIKE FOR INSTANCE, YOU'RE GONNA HIT YOUR FIVE YEARS AS A SERGEANT ON MARCH THE THIRD OF 2026, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SOMEBODY WHO WAS PROMOTED TO, UH, SERGEANT ON APRIL THE THIRD OF 2021, WOULD SIMILARLY NOT BE ELIGIBLE UNTIL APRIL THE THIRD, 2026, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.
SO THERE, REGARDLESS OF, SO REGARDLESS OF YOU BEING AWARE OF THEM THERE, THEN YOU, THERE ARE CERTAINLY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW ELIGIBLE FOR THE LIEUTENANT'S EXAM THAT WERE NOT AS OF, UH, AS OF SEPTEMBER THE 15TH, RIGHT? YES.
[02:15:03]
AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT A NEW TEST CAN BE RECALLED AT ANY TIME, RIGHT? EXCUSE ME.ON NO TESTIMONY I'M GONNA OBJECT TO, I'M GONNA OBJECT TO THE CHALLENGE OF RELEVANCY OF THE THE NEW TEST QUESTION.
I DIDN'T HEAR THE, I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION, MR. PEACOCK.
THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, WAS, UH, THAT, THAT A NEW TEST CAN BE CALLED AT ANY TIME IN THE NEXT 18 MONTHS? OKAY.
I, THAT'S THE STATEMENT OF FACT, I GUESS, BUT PLEASE GO, GO FOR IT, MR. C**K.
SERGEANT FIGUERA? I'M NOT SURE.
AND YOU WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NEXT TEST IF IT WERE CALLED TOMORROW, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AS I BELIEVE I WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS ONE.
NOW, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, PEOPLE MAY TAKE THIS EXAMINATION ON DATES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE, UH, ANNOUNCEMENT SCHEDULE, RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
SO LET'S SAY IF YOU WERE COMING BACK UP OF FMLA, YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE TEST EVEN IF YOU WERE ON FMLA AT THE ORIGINAL ISSUANCE OF THE TEST, RIGHT? YES.
THAT'S, UH, AND THAT THE SAME GOES FOR MILITARY LEAVE, CORRECT? YOU WOULDN'T AGREE WITH ME THAT, THAT, UM, ANY ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEST WOULD, WOULD COUNT AS, UM, REOPENING THE FLOODGATES, RIGHT? I'M NOT SURE.
MR. SIDE, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO, SIR.
SERGEANT FIGUEROA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH, SIR.
YOUR NEXT WITNESS CALL MR. DAVIS.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU SEE MR. DAVIS? I SEE HIS PICTURE YET? YES.
WE'LL SWEAR HIM IN AGAIN THEN.
MR. DAVIS, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE.
DO YOU SWEAR, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.
AND WE DID SEE HIM ON SCREEN AND CAN VERIFY THAT HE RAISED HIS HAND AND, UH, MAY THE OATH, MR. THANK YOU.
UM, SO ON YOUR, UH, YOU PUT OUT THE PROMOTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE POLICE LIEUTENANTS TEST THAT WE'RE HERE ABOUT TODAY, CORRECT? UH, CORRECT.
MY DEPARTMENT DID PUBLISH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.
AND THE ANA, THE, SO THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION, IT HAS TWO PARTS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO THERE'S A WRITTEN TEST AND THEN THERE'S AN ASSESSMENT THAT'S DONE.
UH, AND THOSE ARE DONE ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND SO THE, THE WRITTEN TEST WAS SCHEDULED FOR JULY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS SCHEDULED FOR, UM, SEPTEMBER.
SO THAT'S A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT BY YOU, YOU, WHEN YOU CHOSE WHICH, WHICH DATE TO USE AS THE CUTOFF DATE FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE? UH, WELL, LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY.
DID YOU CHOOSE THE DATE, UH, TO USE AS A CUTOFF DATE? THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHES THAT WE DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO SIT FOR THE WRITTEN OR THE ASSESSMENT CENTER COMPONENT.
BY THE SIX MONTH ELIGIBILITY CALCULATED OFF OF ONE SERVICE AT THE TIME, WE PLAN TO ADMINISTER THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION COMPONENT OF THIS PROMOTIONAL PROCESS.
SO IN YOUR, IN YOUR LETTER THAT YOU WROTE TO THE GRIEVANCE, UM, DATED JULY 3RD, 2025, EXCUSE ME.
UM, AND IT'S ON, IT'S IN MY MATERIALS ON PAGE 11.
BUT THERE YOU WROTE, UM, THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT HAS RULED THAT ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE LIEUTENANT'S PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE WRITTEN EXAM DATE ON JULY 8TH, 2025.
[02:20:01]
TO THE SCHEDULED ASSESSMENT CENTER.SO I'M ASKING THAT, DID YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? THAT'S YES.
AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S IN THE EXAM ANNOUNCEMENT.
SO YOU DECIDED, BUT YOU DECIDED TO USE JULY 28TH, UM, IF YOU HAD USED AND, AND BY DECIDING TO LOSE USE JULY 28TH AS THE DATE, UM, I WANT TO COMPARE THAT TO, HAD YOU DECIDED TO USE SEPTEMBER 15TH, NOW ONE WOULD ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO TAKE THE TEST AND ONE WOULD FORECLOSE MORE PEOPLE FROM TAKING THE TEST.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? UM, I CAN'T CONFIRM OR DENY THAT WITHOUT LOOKING AT ANY PARTICULAR DATA.
BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION, LET'S STIPULATE THAT YOU'RE CORRECT.
BUT YOU CHOSE THE LESS INCLUSIVE, I'M NOT SAYING YOU DID IT INTENTIONALLY, BUT YOUR CHOICE WAS RESULTING IN LESS INCLUSIVE, UH, POOL OF PEOPLE THAT WERE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THIS TEST, RIGHT? THE EXAM, NO, MY, THE, THE, THE CUTOFF DATE OF JULY 8TH IS CONSISTENTLY ESTABLISHED FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN EXAM, WRITTEN IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHO MAY SIT FOR EITHER COMPONENT.
BUT YOUR DEC THE DECISION TO USE JULY AS THE CUTOFF DATE AS OPPOSED TO SEPTEMBER, WAS BY DEC WHAT RESULTED IN LESS APPLICANTS BEING ELIGIBLE? NAMELY, THE GRIEVANCE WERE RULED OUT ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT DECISION.
THE GRIEVANCE WERE RULED OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ELIGIBLE TO, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WRITTEN EXAM BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE REACHED SIX MONTHS IN THAT RANK, UM, FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN EXAM.
THAT'S WHY THEY WERE PRECLUDED OR EXCLUDED FROM THIS, FROM THIS EXERCISE.
AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WAS BECAUSE OF YOUR DECISION TO USE THE JULY DATE? CORRECT.
THE JULY DATE IS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE IT'S SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WRITTEN EXAM.
AND THE, IF, IF THE SEPTEMBER DATE WAS USED, YOU AGREE WITH ME, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE TEST, THE EXAM, RIGHT, BASED ON THEIR SERVICE DATES? I DO BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT, AS WAS THE CASE, I THINK IN THE, IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING.
PASS THE WITNESS, MR. PEACOCK.
MR. DAVISON, I AM NOT ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION BECAUSE MY MATRICULATION OF MY ROLE IS NOT COMPLETE.
UH, BUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THAT AT WRITTEN EXAMINATION, SHOULD I BE ALLOWED TO SIT FOR THAT EXAMINATION? NO.
AND IF I AM NOT AS, MIGHT I ADD AS THE ANNOUNCEMENT PROVIDES? AND CAN I START MY EXAMINATION PROCESS WITH PART TWO? NO.
SO IF I'M NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PART ONE, HOW DO I GET TO PART TWO BY BEING ELIGIBLE FOR PART ONE AS THE WITNESS.
SERGEANT FERRO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
AND MR. AND MR. DAVIS, THANK YOU AS WELL.
UH, MR. SEIDER AND THE NEXT WITNESS, REST ARREST, MR. SEIDER, DO WE WANT TO STIPULATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE OTHER, THE OTHER GRIEVANCE ALL FELL WITHIN KIND OF WITHIN THE SAME, THE SAME ISSUE WE HAVE WITHIN, EVEN THOUGH THE DATES MAY, THEIR DATES AND WHEN THEY REACH THEIR FIVE YEARS MAY BE DIFFERENT.
WE, WE CAN STIPULATE THAT THEY WERE, THEY, THEY WERE SUBJECT TO RULE 4.3 B AS INTERPRETED BY THE CIVIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
WELL, IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT I'VE SUBMITTED, UH, THEY ALL PROMOTED ALL THE GRIEVANCE THAT I'M REPRESENTING.
THEY ALL PROMOTE IT TO THE SERGEANT ON THE EXACT SAME DAY.
ALSO, THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE PREVIOUS GRIEVANCE AS WELL.
I THINK THEY'RE ALL ON THE SAME DAY.
SO EVERY, EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE, WELL, WE, WE'LL, STIPULA, THEY ALL HAVE THAT DATE THOUGH.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S IN MY MATERIALS.
UM, IN ONE OF THE EXHIBITS, THE, THE PROMOTION DATES TO, UH, THE GRIEVANCE AND THE, ALL OF THE ONES THAT I'M REPRESENTING, ARE THEY ALL PROMOTED ON MARCH 3RD, 2021.
AND I'M SORRY, YOU RESTED, CORRECT? YES.
MR. PEACOCK, UH, THAT WAS, UH, MY WITNESS FOR THE CITY, UH, YOUR HONOR.
WHEN, UH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BOTH SIDES CLOSE AND MR.
[02:25:01]
SIDE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY CLOSING ARGUMENT? YES.UM, SO AGAIN, I'M KIND OF IN AN UNUSUAL, UNUSUAL POSITION, ALMOST LIKE A QUASI APPEAL HERE, UM, BECAUSE THIS, THIS ISSUE'S ALREADY BEEN HEARD.
HOWEVER, UM, HERE'S THE BASIC FACTS THAT I UNDERSTAND THEM, THEM, UM, THE BOARD HAS RULED THAT MY CLIENTS WEREN'T ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE, THE PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATION BECAUSE JARED DAVIS DECIDED TO PICK A DATE, UM, AT HIS DISCRETION.
AND THE BOARD, UH, THE CHAIRMAN HAS SAID, UH, ON THE, IN THE PRIOR HEARING, IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING, THAT IT GIVES WEIGHT TO THE AGENCY'S INTERPRETATION.
BUT I THINK WHAT THE BOARD, UM, WHILE I RESPECTED A DECISION, I THINK WHAT THEY'VE MISSED HERE IS THAT THE PURPOSE, THE, YOU READ 4.3, YOU SEE THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO ALLOW, UH, OPEN THE DOORS TO, FOR PEOPLE TO PROMOTE, TO BE ELIGIBLE, TO PROMOTE, AND TO BE READY TO PROMOTE ONCE THEY HAVE FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE.
AS A SERGEANT, THIS, THIS CLEAR, THIS RULE WAS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO ALLOW SERGEANTS WITH LESS THAN FIVE YEARS TO BE, UH, QUEUED UP, SO TO SPEAK, TO BE ABLE TO PROMOTE, TO GET THROUGH THE PROMOTIONAL PROCESS.
AND THAT ONCE THEY'RE, AND THEY'RE ON THE LIST, AND IF THEY'RE ON THE LIST WITHOUT FIVE YEARS, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY HIT FIVE YEARS, BUT THEY'RE AT LEAST READY TO PROMOTE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROMOTIONAL EXAM.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE RULE SEEMS TO MAKE CLEAR.
AND IT, AND IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO PINPOINT EXACTLY WH WHICH PART OF THE EXAMINATION.
IT SAYS THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN EXAMINATION AND I, AND THE EXAMINATION IS NOT DONE UNTIL IT'S FULLY ADMINISTERED.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT, UM, THAT THE, THAT, UM, THAT, THAT MY CLIENTS HAVE BEEN PUT IN THIS POSITION WHERE THEY'RE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE THEY'RE ALL VERY CLOSE TO HAVE FIVE YEARS OF ELIGIBILITY AS A SERGEANT.
UM, AND THEY, THEY COULD BE READY TO PROMOTE AT THIS POINT, AT ANY, YOU KNOW, UH, WITHIN A FEW MONTHS.
UH, THEY'VE, THEY, THEY WILL BE AT THAT POINT IN THEIR CAREERS WHERE THEY, THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CIVIL SERVICE SAYS, YOU'VE GOT FIVE YEARS AS A SERGEANT, YOU CAN BE A LIEUTENANT.
BUT THEY'VE BEEN PREVENTED FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE, THE PURPOSE OR THE SPIRIT OF, OF 4.3 B.
SO, UM, AGAIN, I'M URGING THEM TO THE BOARD TO RECONSIDER THE PRIOR DECISION.
MR. PEACOCK, MAY I PLEASE THE COURT OPPOSING COUNSEL, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? I MEAN, AGAIN, UH, THIS IS, THIS WAS, HAS BEEN MORE OF A CONCISE HEARING.
UM, I DON'T AGREE THAT, THAT THIS WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS OR JUST, YOU KNOW, SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF, OF MR. DAVIS.
WHAT I, WHAT I THINK WHAT HAPPENED, HAPPENED HERE IS A LOGICAL DECISION WAS MADE, A LOGICAL DECISION THAT SAYS, HEY, I'VE GOT SENIOR CORPORAL EXAMS. I'VE GOT LIEUTENANT EXAMS. BOTH INVOLVE EXAMINATIONS.
LET'S JUST DRAW THE LINE OF EXAMINATION AND BE CONSISTENT WITH IT.
NOW, WE, NOW, THE, THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RULES DO GIVE SIX MONTHS ON THE, ON THE AFTER, ON THE AFTER SIDE OF THAT, UM, OF THAT ADMINISTRATION OF A WRITTEN EXAMINATION.
AND WE DO THAT BECAUSE YES, SOMEONE WHO'S CLOSE MAY NOT NECESSARILY, UH, MAY, MAY BE ABLE TO TEST WELL ENOUGH TO, UH, MAKE IT ONTO THE LIST IN A, IN A HIGHER POSITION.
NOW, THE, THE THING THAT I THINK IS, UH, IS, THAT'S BEEN KIND OF GLOSSED OVER AT THIS POINT IS THAT BY SAYING THAT WE SHOULD CALCULATE IT BASED ON ANOTHER FUTURE DATE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT I NEED EVEN LESS EXPERIENCE AS A SERGEANT TO MAKE IT TO A LIEUTENANT.
SO INSTEAD OF ME POTENTIALLY, UH, TAKING THE EXAM, UM, SIX MONTHS OR FOUR YEARS AND FIVE MONTHS INTO MY TENURE AS A, AS A SERGEANT, BECAUSE PART ONE AND PART TWO HAPPEN ON DIFFERENT DATES, USUALLY MONTHS APART, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE CLOSER TO ONLY FOUR YEARS OF SERGEANT EXPERIENCE SITTING FOR A LIEUTENANT EXAM.
IN WHICH CASE, WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING THE FIVE YEARS IN THE FIRST PLACE? UM, I THINK THAT WE, WE ADHERE TO AS A, AS A, AS A, AS A POLITY AND, UH, CONSISTENCY O OVER CHAOS.
AND I THINK THAT ONCE THE BOARD KNOCKS OFF THE, UH, THE CURRENT CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF THE, UH, UH, OF THE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT AT THAT CASE, YOU OPEN IT UP TO BEING KNOCKED OFF ANOTHER TIME AND ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER TIME.
SO EVENTUALLY WE ARE, WE COMPLETELY UP THE WHOLE SYSTEM, SYSTEM.
UM, I, I, I THINK THAT THE BOARD HAS HEARD QUITE A LOT OF ON THIS ISSUE OVER THE COURSE OF THE DAY.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THE BOARD HEARD,
[02:30:01]
HEARD, UH, THIS GRIEVANCE IN A TRIAL PRIOR TO THIS ONE, IT RULED AGAINST THE GT.UM, I, I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD ANYTHING IN THIS SECOND TRIAL THAT WOULD, UH, CAUSE ONE'S MIND TO, TO, TO CHANGE ALL THAT MUCH.
UM, THAT'S JUST IN THE POSITION OF THE CITY.
UM, SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN, UH, PRESENTED HERE, AN EXAMINATION DID TAKE PLACE ON JULY THE EIGHTH, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD TO START JULY THE EIGHTH.
UM, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE ALLOW, WE THE, WE'RE GONNA ASK THE BOARD TO ALLOW US TO REMAIN CONSISTENT ON THAT AND DENY THIS, THIS GRIEVANCE.
UM, I WANNA THANK BOTH OF YOU, MR. CIDER.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION.
I APPRECIATE, I APPRECIATE THE BREVITY AND, UH, I ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR PROFESSIONALISM.
MR. PEACOCK IS THE SAME WITH YOU.
UM, THIS AGAIN, I'M GONNA TAKE IT OUT OF ORDER ON AGENDA WITH THE CONSENT OF THE, OF THE, UH, REST OF THE BOARD.
RATHER THAN GO THROUGH OTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, I'M GONNA GO DIRECT YOU TO ITEMS, EXCUSE ME, ACTION ITEM SIX SIX B, TAKE ACTION.
UPON THE GRIEVANCE APPEAL HEARING OF OMAR PEGUERO, BENJAMIN O. RYAN, SWAIN, BENJAMIN, AND JOSE GUERRERO, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, UM, RIDDLE MAYBE, AND JESSE RODRIGUEZ HAVE DROPPED THEIR, THEIR GRIEVANCE APPEAL.
I'M, I'M GONNA START AGAIN, IF THAT'S OKAY.
AND IF I HAVE THE OKAY WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD.
UM, I'M GONNA, I THINK WE'RE JUST ALL GONNA INCORPORATE WHAT WE SAID AT THE PRIOR HEARING RATHER THAN RESTATE IT ALL.
UM, MR. MR UH, CIDER DID BRING UP A, A, A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS.
HE SAID THAT THE RULE IS EXPANSIVE WITH THIS SIX MONTH PERIOD, AND I, I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT THE, THAT THAT DID EXPAND THE, THE, THE, THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE IT TO, TO START THE EXAMINATION PROCESS.
UM, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE, TO BE INHERENTLY UNFAIR TO SAY, UH, OUR DATE IS, SAY OUR, OUR EXAMINATION DATE IS NOVEMBER 4TH, TWO, 2025, AND I REACHED MY FIVE YEARS ON NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025.
SO I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LITTLE LEEWAY GIVEN THERE TO EXPAND THE APPLICANT POOLS AND SAY, WE WON'T, WE'RE NOT GONNA PENALIZE YOU IF YOU'RE CLOSE.
HOWEVER, I DON'T TAKE THAT AS, AS AN INVITATION FOR MORE EXPANSION OF THAT TO AFTER THE, AFTER THE, UH, CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS.
SO I THINK THAT THE, THE SIX MONTH PERIOD IS, IS, IS TO GIVE A BREAK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CLOSE TO THAT, THAT FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
AND IT IS A MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR THE POSITION OF LIEUTENANT THAT YOU HAVE FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A SERGEANT.
SO, WITHOUT REPEATING MYSELF, I'M GONNA SIMPLY SAY THAT, UH, I, I'M IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE, UH, UH, THE APPEALS OF THE GRIEVANCE.
MR. CHAIR, MAY I ADD SOMETHING? OH, MS. GERBER, YES.
SO THERE, THERE WAS ANOTHER POINT THAT WAS RAISED THAT I DON'T RECALL BEING RAISED IN THE FIRST CASE.
AND JARED, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT SOMEONE ASKED YOU THE QUESTION ABOUT IF SOMEONE IS NOT ELIGIBLE, IF THEY WON'T BE ELIGIBLE AFTER THE TEST, WILL THEY BE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE TEST? AND YOU SAID, NO, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK I HEARD.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IF THEY GOT TO TAKE THE TEST OR TESTS, DOESN'T, ISN'T THAT IMPLIED.
DOESN'T THAT IMPLY THAT THEY COULD BE SELECTED TO, TO GET PROMOTED? LET ME, LET ME ADD HERE QUICKLY HERE.
UH, MS. GERBER, WE, WE'VE CONCLUDED THE, THE TESTIMONY ASPECT OF IT.
WE WERE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA GO BACK AND START IN QUESTIONING INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES AGAIN.
WE'VE CLOSED THE HEARING, OKAY? OKAY.
WELL, HOW DO, WHEN CAN I ASK THAT QUESTION? WHEN, WHEN WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE? I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS, IS MY QUESTION IS IF THEY'RE, IF A PERSON, IF A SERGEANT IS NOT GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE AT THE COMPLETION OF THE TEST, SOMEONE ASKED JARED IF THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE TEST AND HE SAID NO.
AND SO I, MY QUESTION IS, ISN'T IT A, AN IMPLIED POTENTIAL THAT THEY COULD GET PROMOTED IF THEY WERE ABLE TO TAKE THE TEST, IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO TAKE THE TEST? WELL, LET ME, LEMME TRY TO ANSWER THAT.
I, I MAY REMEMBER THAT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THAN, THAN YOU DO.
I, I, I RECALL THE TESTIMONY BEING, AND AGAIN, MAYBE I'M GETTING MIXED OVER.
THE FIRST TIME RECALL, THE TESTIMONY IS THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION CONSTITUTES 35%.
[02:35:01]
THE SCORE OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION CONSTITUTES 35% OF THE, OF THE, OF THE TEST SCORE.UHHUH
OKAY? YOU HAVE FAILED THE WRITTEN EXAM.
THEN IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU PASS THE WRITTEN EXAM, YOU DO GO ONTO THE ASSESSMENT CENTER THAT CONSTITUTES 65% OF THE SCORE, OKAY? IF YOU PASS THE ASSESSMENT CENTER, YOU GET PLACED ON AN ELIGIBILITY LIST.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
DO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS, OR IF, IF THEY DO, THIS IS A TIME TO ADD AND MAKE THEM, OR IF THEY, IF WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION? I, I, I'M SORRY, RIGHT AT THE PRESENT TIME, I DON'T SEE MS. MITCHELL OR MR. PIERRE ARE THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE OKAY.
MAKE SURE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION THEN? OH, I'M SORRY.
I, I MOVE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH MAKING THE DETERMINATION.
AND THAT WOULD BE, WOULD THAT BE DENIAL OF THE, OF THE APPEAL? YES, FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL.
SO I'LL, I'LL TAKE THAT AS A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
AND THEN, MR. PIERRE, THERE'S A SECOND BY YOU.
CORRECT? IS THERE ANY THANK YOU, SIR.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? OKAY.
WE'LL NOW VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY THE GRIEVANCE APPEAL OF, OF THE, OF THE GRIEVANCE.
WE HAVE THREE IN FAVOR, AND THEN YOU HAVE ANYBODY OPPOSED? WE HAVE ONE OPPOSED BY MS. GERBER.
MR. PEACOCK, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR SPENDING YOUR MORNING AND EARLY AFTERNOON WITH US TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE THAT AND, AND, AND TO ALL THE GRIEVANCE, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.
WE'VE GOTTEN OUT OF OUR HEARING ITEMS AT LAST
AND LET ME, AND, AND LESLIE, I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE FREE TO GO TOO.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I THINK NEXT, HAVE A GREAT DAY.
NEXT TIME I'M GONNA BE THERE LIVE FOR THESE KINDS OF PROCEEDINGS.
LET ME GRAB MY, FIND MY SCHEDULE AND OH, IT'S ON THE SCREEN.
I NEED TO TURN AROUND AND LOOK AT IT.
UM, IS THERE, LOOKING AT THE DATES IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR? UM, SURE.
UM, YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE OUR STANDARD MEETING, UM, SCHEDULE LAID OUT FOR 2026.
YOU'LL TAKE NOTE, AND I'LL GET TO THAT A LITTLE BIT IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
UM, IN LIEU OF OUR MEETING NEXT MONTH, I HOPE TO CIRCULATE THROUGH YOU ALL A DRAFT OF OUR ANNUAL REPORT SO WE CAN BE READY TO DISCUSS THAT IN JANUARY.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO JANUARY OF 2026, WE KNOW WE TYPICALLY WILL STEP OFF THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT SECOND MEETING DUE TO HOLIDAY, UM, TRAVEL AND, AND FOLK GETTING, UM, BACK INTO THEIR OFFICES AND THINGS.
AND SO THAT'S THE DECISION POINT THERE, UM, BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
AND THEN I, I, I THOUGHT I HAD CLEANED THIS UP SOME BEFORE.
I DIDN'T MEAN FOR YOU ALL TO HAVE, UM, THESE MANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, IF YOU LOOK AT APRIL, THERE, THERE ARE TWO, THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS THERE.
AND THEN WE KNOW ELECTION DAY IN 2026, I KNOW IN THE PAST, UH, AS TODAY IN THE PAST, WE, WE'VE HAD SOME BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAD OBLIGATIONS IN AND AROUND ELECTION DAY.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S LAID OUT BEFORE YOU TAKING US THROUGH DECEMBER OF NEXT YEAR.
UM, ERNEST BRIDGE, AND PAM, MY GUT DEAL WOULD BE TO HAVE A JANUARY 13TH MEETING RATHER THAN THE SIXTH, JUST BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF HOLIDAYS.
AND PEOPLE MAY BE GETTING BACK FROM A, FROM A WEEKEND AFTER, AFTER THE JANUARY 1ST.
[02:40:01]
Y'ALL, IF YOU ALL PREFER JANUARY 6TH, I'M OKAY.WHAT, WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK? I PREFER JANUARY 13TH.
OKAY, CURTIS, ARE YOU OKAY? I PREFER JANUARY.
OKAY, WE'LL TAKE ACTION IN A LITTLE BIT, BUT, AND THEN ON APRIL, I'M, I'M GONNA JUST LOOK AT MY CALENDAR ON MY PHONE.
WHEN IS EASTER THIS YEAR? NEXT YEAR THEN? I THINK IT'S THE FIFTH.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S THAT WEEK, THE FIFTH.
AND THAT'S WHY WE WOULD BE REGULARLY SCHEDULED FOR THE SEVENTH, BUT WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE 14TH AS AN OPTION, UH, DAY BEFORE TAX DAY
SO YOU'RE WAITING AROUND, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE.
I'M JUST SAYING, JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD PERSONALLY BE INCLINED TO GO TO THE APRIL, APRIL 14TH DAY JUST BECAUSE OF PEOPLE ARE OUT OF TOWN FOR EASTER, COMING BACK FROM EASTER.
THAT, THAT'D BE MY, MY GUT FEEL.
I DON'T, I I, I DON'T USUALLY TRAVEL FOR EASTER, BUT WHATEVER, WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO IS OKAY WITH ME.
WELL, BEING A NICE JEWISH GIRL, UHHUH,
UH,
AND THAT LEADS US TO, WE WON'T, WE WON'T MEET IN JULY, AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE NO MEETINGS.
UM, UM, THEN THE NOVEMBER DATES, LET'S SEE, DID WE GET, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIR, BEFORE WE GET TO NOVEMBER, THE WAY LABOR DAY FALLS OUT IN 2026, THE FIRST IS OKAY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE, IT'S, IT STARTS, THE MONTH STARTS ON A TUESDAY.
SO YOUR FIRST MONDAY WOULDN'T BE UNTIL THE FOLLOWING WEEK IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT.
SO LABOR DAY IS NOT TILL THE SIXTH, THE SEVENTH.
NOW IN NOVEMBER, WE, WE HAVE THREE, WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ELECTION DAY, THE 10TH, WHICH IS, YOU MAY REMIND ME, IS THE 10TH THE DAY THAT THE CITY WILL OBSERVE VETERANS DAY, THE DAY BEFORE VETERANS DAY.
SO WE HAVE THE 10TH, WHICH IS, WHICH IS FINE.
AND THEN THE 17TH, UM, UM, THERE TOO AS WELL.
SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, I'M SORRY, DID WE SAY APRIL 7TH OR APRIL 14TH? WE'RE LOOKING AT, LEMME JUST GO BACK TO YOU.
SO YOU HAVE THE COMPLETE PICTURE BOARD MEMBER GERBER, WE'RE LOOKING AT YOU OFF PRELIMINARILY SAID BEFORE YOUR ACTION.
YOU PRELIMINARILY SAID J JANUARY 13TH, 2026.
UH, OF COURSE FEBRUARY 3RD, MARCH 3RD, AND THEN APRIL 14TH, 2025 OR OR 2026, I'M SORRY, THESE DATES ARE OFF 2026 UNDER APRIL.
UM, AND I THINK NOW WE ARE CONSIDERING, OR YOU ALL ARE DISCUSSING WHICH DATES IN NOVEMBER OUT OF THE THREE NOVEMBER 10TH.
UH, LET ME JUST, THE ONLY ISSUE I WITH NOVEMBER 10TH IS LIKE, JARED, IF YOU OR E EMMANUEL OR STAFF ARE GONNA GO OUT AT, OH, THE 11TH IS A HOLIDAY.
IF IT PLEASURES YOU ALL, UM, ON THE 10TH, THAT WORKS, THAT WORKS.
UM, FOR US, IT WORKS FOR ME BECAUSE NOVEMBER 18TH IS MY BIRTHDAY, WHICH I WOULD PROBABLY SAY IN ANY HOLIDAY TRAVEL TO, TO THEN.
SO WHATEVER YOU ALL CHOOSE IS ALL RIGHT WITH ME.
WELL, MR. DAVIS, TODAY, TODAY IS MY BIRTHDAY AND IT'S BEEN AT, AT A GRIEVANCE HEARING
SO ARE WE SAYING NOVEMBER 10TH? ARE WE SAYING NOVEMBER 10TH? NO.
THAT'S A LONG WAY OFF
UM, ANY OTHER, WE GO DOWN TO ACTION ITEMS AND MOVE THAT A LITTLE BIT OUTTA ORDER TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 20, 25, 26.
SO SERVICE BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE.
UM, I, I, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION.
WE APPROVE THE DATES WE DISCUSSED, UH, JANUARY 13TH, UH, APRIL 14TH.
14TH, NOVEMBER 10TH, AND ALL THE OTHER DAYS WE GONNA FOLLOW OUR REGULAR, UH, FIRST TUESDAY MEETING EXCEPT FOR JULY WHEN WE HAVE NO MEETINGS, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? OBJECTION.
[02:45:01]
ALL, ANY, ANY, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE, THE USE THE REVISED SCHEDULE OR THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE? SAY AYE.AND, AND, UH, JARED, IF WE CAN, I GUESS, WILL YOU SEND OUT JUST CALENDAR INVITES FOR ALL THOSE DATES? YES, SIR.
WE WILL, WE WILL MAKE SURE WE SEND OUT, WE'LL, WE'LL DO TWO, WE'LL DO THREE THINGS.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE SEND OUT CALENDAR INVITES TO HOLD THAT SPACE ON EACH OF YOU ALL'S CALENDARS WITH YOUR EMAIL OF RECORD.
WE'LL ALSO SEND OUT A FINALIZED ONE PAGER WITH ALL OF OUR MEETING DATES, SO YOU ALSO HAVE THAT FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
AND THEN YOU ALSO KNOW THAT, UM, TYPICALLY A MONTH OR SO BEFORE OUR SCHEDULED MEETING, WE SEND OUT THE WEBEX LINKS AS A, YOU KNOW, AS A SECOND ITEM FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO
GERBER LAUGHED YOU THEN WE SENT OUT THAT.
SO, SO, SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL HAVE THE NOTIFICATIONS FOR, FOR THE MEETINGS THAT YOU ALL JUST APPROVED.
AND IF I CAN ADD ONE THING ON OCCASION WHEN JARED AND I TALK, JARED AND I SPEAK, SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO REALLY MERIT HAVING A MEETING AND WE'LL JUST KIND OF PUNT THINGS IN THE NEXT MONTH.
I ASSUME NO ONE OBJECTS TO THAT, BUT WE, WE DO THAT OCCASIONALLY.
I, THERE'S NO, TO ME, THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE A MEETING THAT LASTS FIVE MINUTES.
SO, UH, SO, UM, ON OCCASION WE ARE IN THAT POSITION, SO WE GET TO CANCEL A MEETING.
SO IT WOULDN'T SHOCK ME IF A MEETING OR TWO MAYBE CHANGE BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE OF THAT.
THE ONLY OTHER THING WE HAVE IS A, IS A BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION ITEM FISCAL YEAR 24 25, CIVIL SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT UPDATE.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR WE COMPILE OUR ANNUAL DATA IN COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW, CHAPTER EIGHT OF OUR CITY CODE THAT REQUIRES EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION.
AND SO WE ARE WORKING TO FINALIZE THIS LAST FISCAL YEAR DATA AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HOPE TO, IN EARLY DECEMBER, CIRCULATE A DRAFT COPY FOR YOU SO WE CAN GET ANY FEEDBACK, CORRECTIONS, EDITS, OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS SO WE CAN BE PREPARED TO TAKE ACTION, UH, IN FEBRUARY TO GET THIS OVER TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE IN COMPLIANCE.
AS YOU KNOW, WE LIST OUT OUR, OUR YEAR, LOOK BACK AT THINGS WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED, DATA THAT SUPPORTS OUR OPERATION, UM, AS WELL AS TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT WE'LL BE WORKING ON IN THE NEXT COMING YEARS.
SO I LOOK TO HAVE A, A, A MORE FULL BRIEFING, UM, FOR YOU IN, IN EARLY JANUARY ABOUT THOSE PRIORITIES AND THOSE THINGS, BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE HARDCORE DATA IN THE REPORT, UM, PRIOR TO, SO WE CAN START WORKING ON THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON AND THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY BRIEFING AND UPDATE AS IT RELATES TO ANNUAL REPORT.
SO YOU ALL KNOW WE DO THIS ANNUALLY, SO WE'RE, IT'S, IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN,
SO IN LIEU OF THAT, I'LL, WE'LL TRY TO GET THAT CIRCULATED.
JARED, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT LOSES OUR BUSINESS FOR THE DAY.
AM I, AND JARED, AM I MISSING ANYTHING? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER HEARING, UM, IN MY POCKET FOR YOU.
SO I THINK WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH
WELL, BRIDGET, CURTIS, AND PAM, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR, THIS HAS BEEN A LONGER MEETING THAN NORMAL AND, AND TWO HEARINGS.
SO, SO IT'S, IT IS NOT OUR NORM.
BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR, AGAIN, FOR YOUR ATTENTION, FOR YOUR, YOUR QUESTIONS AND, AND, UH, AND AS I SAID TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALISM, I GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
AND THAT OBVIOUSLY GOES FOR JARED TOO.
UH, SAYS WE WON'T SEE EACH OTHER.
I WISH YOU ALL A HAPPY THANKSGIVING AND A MERRY CHRISTMAS OR HAPPY HOLIDAYS.
IT'S KIND OF HARD TO THINK OF, GUESS WHAT? 75 DEGREES OUTSIDE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHRISTMAS NEW YEAR.
ANYWAY, SO WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 12:57 PM THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.