►
From YouTube: Civil Service Board
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Okay,
well,
I
I
think
we
should
probably
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
carol
can
take
over
when
she
arrives
glad
that
we
could
all
get
together.
B
The
last
time
we
met
was
june
3rd
and
my
birthday
and
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes.
Remember
when,
because
this
is
a
virtual
meeting,
you
should
all
identify
yourselves
when
you're
either
making
a
motion
or
seconding.
B
So
has
everybody
read
the
minutes
on
june
3rd,
or
do
you
need
some
time
everybody's
looked
at
them?
Okay,
carter
also.
B
D
B
Second,
okay,
mike
said
all
in
favor
mike:
how
do
you
vote
hi,
rick,
hi,
awesome,
carter,
hi
and
alan
escovitz?
I
approve
also
so
minutes
have
been
approved
for
june
3rd.
Are
there
I
don't
believe,
there's
any
updated
reports.
John,
do
you
have
anything
to
report?
No,
sir,
I
don't
at
the
moment,
okay,
there's
nothing
from
our
outside
console.
So,
let's
move
on
to
is
there
any
unfinished
business?
From
last
time
we
met
on
june
3rd.
B
I
don't
believe
so
so
we
do
have
one
item
and
it's
a
pretty
likely
item.
It's
the
changes
in
the
disciplinary
policy
for
the
asheville
city
police.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
the
meeting
over
to
the
chief
and
I
believe,
he's
on
the
call
too
she's
there.
E
What
we're
submitting
today,
as
alan
pointed
out,
is
a
new
procedure
as
it
relates
to
discipline,
and
this
will
involve
us
incorporating
a
disciplinary
matrix
and
just
to
give
some
background
on
how
we've
arrived
at
this
policy
shortly
after
my
arrival
here
in
february,
when
I
was
meeting
with
employees
and
employee
groups,
the
issue
of
discipline
came
up
often,
and
most
of
the
the
concerns
were
about
consistency,
fairness
and
really
an
understanding
of
how
the
process
worked
and
how
penalties
were
arrived
at
and,
of
course,
I
think,
with
the
numerous
leadership
changes
that
the
department
had
experienced
over
time.
E
There
were
a
lot
of
inconsistencies
and
discipline
became
more.
You
know
the
whim
of
of
who
who
was
ever
in
the
chair
at
the
time,
and
it
just
created
a
tremendous
amount
of
confusion
and
again
maybe
beliefs
wasn't
always
fair
and
equitable.
E
E
There's
a
lot
of
models
out
there,
specifically
we
research
models
in
cleveland,
san,
diego
new
york
city
and
some
other
agencies
to
try
to
find
something
that
would
fit
best
for
our
agencies
and
I'll.
Tell
you
hats
off
to
sergeant
rick
tullis,
who
I
know
was
on
his
call.
He
did
a
tremendous
amount
of
research
and
a
tremendous
amount
of
leg
work
and
he
had
the
an
enviable
task
of
keeping
me
on
track
with
this
whole
process,
and
he
did
a
great
job
with
that.
E
Their
inclusions
are
approved
by
the
international
association
of
chiefs
of
police,
but
also
the
police
executive
research
forum
also
recommends
that
agencies
incorporate
a
disciplinary
matrix
to
their
process
and
just
to
read
from
the
iacp
council
on
on
why
a
disciplinary
matrix
is
helpful
for
agencies.
I'll
just
read
directly
from
from
their
lead
counsel,
it's
as
follows:
a
well-crafted
discipline
matrix
containing
a
list
of
punitive
corrections
for
specific
policy
violations
can
help
provide
transparency
to
the
public,
communicate
expectations
to
employees,
service
evidence
and
litigation
and
reduce
agency
liability.
E
So
that's
what
a
disciplinary
matrix
does.
This
is
something
that
was
worked
out.
E
I
felt
both
employee
group
groups
thought
it
was
a
great
idea,
and
this
was
something
that
we
worked
collectively
on,
so
it's
opinion
that
this
new
policy
will
benefit
our
community,
our
city,
our
agency
and
our
officers
equally,
and-
and
that
is
why
we're
submitting
that
to
you
all
today
for
approval.
So
with
that
I
will
take
questions
and
and
sergeant
ellis
is
on
this
call
as
well.
He
can
answer
anything
and
we'll
just
turn
it
back
over
to
you
all.
F
Right:
everyone,
I've
kind
of
a
general
question
and
apologize
for
those
of
us
that
have
not
dove
into
sort
of
the
particulars
of
the
matrix.
Can
you
just
give
sort
of
a
top
level
sort
of
highlight
just
kind
of
how
it
works
without
you
know
going
over
it?
E
If
we
had
to
do
that,
but,
generally
speaking,
you
know
what
we're
taking
into
account
is,
you
know
we
know
there
are
going
to
be,
are
going
to
be
violations
of
rules
and
policies
and
the
severity
of
you
know
those
policies
will
dictate
or
those
violations
will
dictate
the
level
of
punishment
and
we
place
those
violations
in
categories
of
severity,
but
also
what
we
do
is
we
take
into
account
any
mitigating
and
or
aggravating
factors
that
may
exist
when
we
decide
on
what
the
final
penalty
is
so
we're
kind
of
like
prioritizing
with
severity
of
violation,
but
also
taking
into
account
an
officer's
experience,
an
officer's
intent,
an
officer's
past
history
and
level
of
performance,
all
those
things
that
should
be
taken
into
account
when
we
decide
on
what
sort
of
punitive
action
may
be
necessary
to
address
a
certain
issue,
but
it
also
again
kind
of
you
know
it
lets
the
public
know
again.
E
What
are
the
most
serious
violations
that
can
occur,
but
also
how
we
come
to
a
conclusion
on
how
we
administer
those
punitive
actions.
So
there's
flexibility,
but
there's
also
structure.
E
That
is
definitely
more
again
transparent,
but
also
more
clear
and
that's
important
again
for
the
community,
but
also
for
our
officers
to
know
what
the
expectations
are,
but
it
also
establishes
when
your
discipline
isn't
aligned
with
best
practices
and
your
discipline
is
meeting
industry
standards
and
is
what
is
accepted
in
the
industry.
I
think
our
city
attorney
will
tell
you
when
that
discipline
is
applied
across
the
board
and
evenly
particular
punishment
different
for
this
officer
or
this
city
employee
than
it
did
for
another
city
employee.
Why?
What
were
the
extenuating
circumstances?
F
B
Today,
if
I
have
a
general
question
and
then
one
that's
more
specific,
you
have
a
number
of
items
throughout
the
document
that
are,
how
do
you
differentiate
that
and
why
were
they
placed
in
blue
versus
the
other
items
throughout
the
document.
E
Alan,
I
believe
those
were
just
the
changes.
Okay
from
the
previous
policy,
all
right,
okay,
these
are
just
basically
almost
the
whole
policy
exactly.
B
That's
that's
the
reason
for
it
and
my
specific
question
was:
when
would
a
presumptuous
penalty
be
applied
and
how
and
for
what
reason
we
don't
have.
A
A
Go
either
to
the
lesser,
the
mitigating
or
or
the
the
higher
level,
which
would
be
on
the
other
side,
with
the
aggravating
does
that.
E
Is
that
scandal
alan
it's
kind
of
like
the
baseline
okay?
You
know
if,
if
no
other
factor
is
present,
this
is
where
we're
at
and
we
just
kind
of
fall
in
line
with
wherever
that,
we've
decided
that
that
punitive
action
lies
within
the
disciplinary
process,
so
it's
just
the
baseline
and
now
what
else
might
be
affecting
the
outcome
and
that.
B
E
Okay
and
there's
always
going
to
be
some
some
instances
where,
where
the
matter
is
more
clear-cut
than
others,
you
know
coming
in
late,
not
showing
up
with
proper
equipment.
You
know
things
of
that
nature.
E
Those
those
issues
are
going
to
be
relatively
less
subjective,
and
you
know,
but
again,
whether
there's
a
mitigating
factor,
traffic
was
bad.
Weather
was
bad.
You
know
this
is
the
first
time
this
officer's
ever
shown
up
late
for
work.
Those
would
be
all
those
mitigating
factors,
but
if
none
of
those
things
are
present,
we
have
a
baseline
that
we
work
off
of.
B
E
I
I
think
yeah
we
we
always
have
that,
especially
you
know
when
you
like,
when
you
start
determining
how
many
mitigating
factors,
how
many
aggravating
factors
are
there,
mitigating
factors
and
aggravating
factors.
So
you
know
that's
where
you
know
that's
where
it
becomes.
E
You
know
the
issue
becomes
a
little
bit
cloudier,
but
what
the
advantage
is
that
we're
addressing
all
and
that
we're
ensuring
that
all
are
taking
being
taken
into
consideration
on
a
penalty,
and
it
just
provides
all
parties
with
what
the
thought
process
was
and
how
the
decision
was
arrived
at
and
then
it's
up
to
someone
else
to
determine
whether
you
know
that
was
insufficient
and
or
sufficient
action
taken.
B
And
I'm
only
asking
that
question
in
order
to
avoid
the
from
our
standpoint
whether
or
not
there's
you
know
taking
out
the
guesswork
whether
there
was
objectivity
in
the
final
analysis
of
why
the
action
was
taken
against
the
employee.
So.
E
And
again,
yeah
and
again,
that's
why
we
have
those
mitigating
and
aggravating
factors
really
spelled
out
now,
there's
always
going
to
be
something
we
may
not
have
considered,
and
you
know
these
policies
tend
to
be
living
documents
as
our
policies
change
and
as
procedure
change
and
as
training
changes.
E
You
know
we
may
have
to
make
adjustments
to
this
policy
from
from
time
to
time,
so
it
is
kind
of
a
living
document.
We
have
a
very,
very
good
baseline.
E
F
Chief
one
more
question
just
to
make
sure
I
understand
one
rick
deborah
again
here
the
category
e
offenses
are
violations,
I
mean
those
are
sort
of
the
most
serious.
It
looks
like
that
really
is
the
wording
says
that
are
contrary
to
the
core
values
of
the
department
and
down
there.
One
of
one
of
the
examples
is,
I
guess,
it's
I-11
truthfulness.
F
So
if
an
officer
were
sort
of
charged,
you
know
maybe
submitting
some
kind
of
a
false
report
or
something
like
that
with
some
untruthful
statements,
and
it
was
found
that
he
he
did
that
willfully
he
or
she,
the
presumptive
sort
of
punishment,
would
be
a
suspension
as
it
outlines
their
reduction
in
rank
by
two
steps,
but
then,
depending
if
there
were
aggravating
circumstances.
F
I
this
could
be
as
much
as
termination
or
if
there
were
mitigating
factors,
then
still
there
would
be
the
the
ideas.
There'd
be
a
suspension
that
would
occur,
but
not
quite
as
lengthy
and
not
not
the
same
reduction
in
rank
to
the
same
degree.
Do
I
do.
I
have
that.
E
Correct
and
and
but
basically,
what
we're
saying
is
there
is
no
circumstance
that
exists
within
the
police
department,
regardless
of
what
were
what
what
the
issue
is
at
hand,
that
any
lack
of
truthfulness
will
be
tolerated
on
any
level.
Okay
and-
and
that
is
the
purpose
now
you
know
if
you
said,
I
was
late,
because
the
traffic
was
bad
and
the
traffic
wasn't
bad
you're
still
going
on
the
beach.
C
E
Certainly,
if,
if
you
lie
on
a
report
or
you
lie
under
oath
or
you
alter
a
document,
anything
you're
gone
and
there's,
there's
no
mitigating
factor.
That's
going
to
eliminate
that
aggravating
factor
it
just
will
not
a
lack
of
truthfulness
will
not
be
tolerated.
I
think
that's
what
the
policy
states
you
know.
Any
sort
of
lack
of
truthfulness
will
result
in
certain
disciplinary
action.
D
D
D
E
Well,
I
mean
we
are
talking
about
you
know
when
we
talk
about
you
know
an
unpaid
suspension
or
a
paid
suspension
for
more
than
a
minute
reversed.
E
When
we're
talking
about
a
suspension
where
pay
is
involved,
the
schedule
is
really
irrelevant.
I
mean
we're
talking
about
the
2018
hour
work
year
and
one
day
off
is
considered
an
eight-hour
tour
where
we
would
suspend
for
that
length
of
time.
If
that
kind.
E
A
E
D
It's
just
like
if
somebody
was
suspended
for
four
days,
would
it
be
four
12
hour
days
or
four
eight
hour
days
I
mean
that's.
I
mean
yeah.
D
Past,
if
you
were
working
a
10
hour
shift
or
12
hour
shift
or
an
eight
hour
shift
or
seven
and
a
half
hour
shift
your
day
was
whatever
you
were
working.
C
A
D
Okay,
so
if
they
were
suspended
for
a
day
and
they're
on
patrol
they'd,
be
off
for
eight
hours
but
then
come
in
the
remaining
four.
Does
that
make
sense.
E
C
G
It
wouldn't
be
in
your
jurisdiction
to
hear
it
as
a
board
until
it's
a
14-day
suspension
and
that's
calendar
day,
for
the
very
reason
that
you're
getting
it
mike
that,
because
your
emergency
services
personnel,
don't
work
a
day
in
the
same
sense
that
somebody
with
a
you
know,
a
wastewater
plant
might
work
for
example.
So
it's
you
know
that
that
kind
of
rounds
it
out
for
where
your
jurisdiction
as
a
hearing.
D
Just
so
that
it
was
clear
because
to
just
just
say
eight
hour
day,
you
know
well
my
day's
12
hours,
even
though
I
don't
work
as
many
of
them
in
the
week
so,
but
I
mean
it
makes
sense.
I
have
no
problem
with
it.
It
was
just
my
questions
how
it
was
going
to
be
addressed
as
far
as
like
police
and
fire
who
actually
work
a
shift,
that's
not
based
on
eight
hours
or
seven
or
a
half
or
whatever.
E
And,
and
to
follow
up
on
that
mike
too
there's
often
a
misconception,
and
sometimes
it's
not
a
misconception
where
the
higher
the
rank,
the
lesser
the
penalty
and
where
there's
inconsistency
with
rule
violations,
the
higher
up
in
rank.
You
go
that
there's
a
there's,
a
different
process.
That
applies
so
we're
trying
to
eliminate
that
those
sort
of
issues
and
that
discipline
is
evenly
applied
regardless
of
rank
and
in
fact
one
of
the
aggravating
factors
will
be
your
rank.
E
E
Mistake
that
a
a
patrol
officer
makes
and
if
a
supervisor
makes
that
same
mistake,
there's
a
higher
expectation
for
that
supervisor's
behavior.
So
that
is
an
aggravating
factor
in.
B
Chief,
I
read
about
the
through
the
document
on
the
coaching
sessions
and
when
they
be
applied
for
personal
conduct
or
performance
issues,
and
the
supervisor
is
required
to
provide
some
guidance
and
written
direction
for
the
employee.
How
how
do
you
assure
that
the
individuals
met
those
expectations?
B
What
is
the,
how
do
you
assure
the
outcome
of.
E
E
You
know
we
have
to
be
careful,
especially
when
we're
talking
about
minor
violations
and
especially
when
an
officer
is
very
young
in
their
career,
that
you
know
that
we're
guiding
them
along
and
that
we're
teaching
them
as
opposed
to
relying
completely
on
punitive
measures
written
punitive
measures,
but
obviously,
as.
E
E
Is
the
officer
responding,
but
you
know
we
don't
want
to
bring,
is
kind
of
like
mike
says
you
know
you
start
bringing
in
an
officer
who's
been
here
two
weeks
and
all
of
a
sudden,
you're
hanging,
all
sorts
of
paper
on
them
and
they
they
shut
down,
especially
during
field
training
where
all
of
a
sudden,
you
know
they
start
doing
nothing
because
they're
trying
to
avoid
a
mistake,
and
that's
that
does
not
produce
an
effective
police
department.
E
So
you
know
we
try
to
coach
first,
but
I
I
won't
know
how
much
coaching
is
taking
place.
Those
are
discussions
for
first
and
second
line
supervision
and
of
course
they
meet
regularly
with
employees
too
and
have
those
discussions
and
when
the
coaching's
not
working,
then
we
move
into
the
written
documentation.
B
Experience
documentation
remain
in
their
portfolio
permanently
or
after
a
period
of
time.
Is
it
dismissed
the
fact
that
they
had
that
coaching
requirement.
E
D
Chief,
a
lot
of
this
is
going
to
fall
on
first
line
supervisors.
D
D
I
mean
in
years
past
the
state
or
somebody
put
on
first-line
supervision
schools
which
covered
a
lot
of
these
issues
and
how
to
document
and
how
to
you
know,
have
discussions
with
employees
and
how
to
deal
with
marginal
employees,
and
all
this
are
we
still
actually
getting
some
of
that
training
for
our
first
line?
Supervisors?
D
E
Covet
has
certainly
set
us
back
on
that
yeah
and,
of
course,
what
we've
experienced
here
that's
well
documented
is
the
loss
of
employees
and
loss
of
supervision,
and
we
do
have
some
very
young
supervisors.
E
But
you
know
we
are
constantly
looking
at
trainings
and
what's
being
offered
to
really
hone
those
leadership
skills.
E
They
know
when
to
discipline
and
of
course
we
have
to
do
our
very
best
to
to
train
them
and
and
to
make
sure
that
they
understand
why
the
why
the
rules
are
in
effect,
what
the
purpose
behind
the
policies
are
and
also
when
to
use
discretion
and
when
to
use.
You
know
to
go
to
a
more
documented,
a
more
formal
process
but
yeah.
We
need
work
there,
there's
there's
no
question
and
you
can
never
have
too
much
leadership
training.
I
don't
think
we
have
to
look
at
just
what's
available.
E
You
know,
through
the
county
and
through
the
state
we
have
to
look
all
over
the
country
for
leadership
schools.
I
was
fortunate
enough
in
my
career
to
be
sent
many
places
for
some
of
the
best
training
that
there
is
and
we
will
explore
all
those
options
with
our
employees
as
well.
D
Yeah
it's
years
past,
in
dealing
with
younger
employees
a
lot
of
times.
I
found
that
some
of
the
in-service
training
by
their
own
supervisors-
people
they
looked
up
to
actually
was
more
beneficial
to
him
than
a
stranger
from
raleigh
or
a
stranger
from
ab
tech,
because
they
deal
with
them
every
day.
So
yeah
I
mean
in
service
any
kind
of
training.
D
E
You're,
a
sergeant
here
you
go,
yeah
go,
go,
go
supervised,
but
I
think
that's.
This
is
kind
of
where
the
matrix
comes
in
in
handy
as
well,
because
the
matrix
itself
provides
structure
and
provides
guidance
where
these
are
the
rules.
These
are
the
expectations
and,
as
as
they
see
the
matrix
being
applied,
that
will
be
a
learning
process
not
only
for
the
individual
employees,
but
also
supervision
as
well.
This
is
how
this
is
properly
applied.
These
are.
E
D
D
B
E
E
Everyone
will
have
a
copy
of
it,
they
will
be
tested
on
it
to
make
sure
that
they
understand
it
and
we
will
we
will
roll
it
out,
and
I
mean
this
is
a
huge
change
for
the
agency,
and
I
know
I
I
know
just
from
35
years
of
experience
when
a
memo
comes
out
on
discipline,
everybody
reads
it
so
and
of
course
we
have
our
employee
groups
who
represent
the
employees,
who
are
going
to
be
very
much
involved
in
the
rollout
of
this
process,
because
what
we
want
understood
by
everyone
this
this
did
not
just
come
down
from
the
ivory
tower
this.
E
This
is
something
that
we
worked
on
collectively
and,
and
I
think
it
really
demonstrates
the
leadership
in
our
employee
groups
that
they
understand
the
importance
of
accountability.
They
understand
the
importance
that
that
discipline
sometimes
plays
in
that,
but
they're
also
want
to
make
sure
that
the
process
is
equitable
and
fair
and
that
they
understand
it
and
that
is
applied
evenly
and
the
fact
that.
B
E
Able
to
work
together
on
a
document
such
as
this
coming
from
the
heavy
union
environment,
I
did
come
from.
You
don't
always
see
this,
but
this
was
a
collaboration
and
I
think
when
we're
collaborating
in
the
fashion
that
we
are,
the
acceptance
from
the
rank
and
file
will
come
much
much
easier.
F
Chief
on
that
note,
you
mentioned
that
this
document
will
also
go
a
long
ways
towards
providing
transparency
with
the
public.
You
know,
because,
with
all
the
interesting
professional
standards,
police
conduct-
misconduct
I
mean
I
know-
would
be
maybe
difficult
to
sort
of
translate
all
the
technical
aspects
of
this
kind
of
policy
to
the
public.
But
are
you
planning
on
any
kind
of
a
use
of
it
to
help
improve
confidence
within
the
public
and
police,
accountability
and
discipline.
E
C
E
Certainly
that
you
know
we're
going
to
roll
this
out
through
our
social
media
and
so
forth,
and
I
mean
the
policies
are:
are
public,
so
it's
you
know
it's
there
for
people
to
see.
Certainly
if
we
get
questions
on
it,
we'll
answer
those
questions.
F
Yeah
I
mean
it
just
seems
to
me
like
to
help
answer
the
question.
What
are
you
doing?
You
know
in
the
wake
of
george
floyd,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
This
is
one
of
those
sort
of
con
concrete
measures
that
a
department
can
point
to
where
you
know
whether,
again,
whether
you
agree
or
disagree
too
lenient,
too
tough,
you
go
well.
Man
they're
putting
structure
out
there,
yeah.
E
And
I
think
that's
important
is
the
structure
yeah,
the
structure
can
be
debated
yeah,
but
you
know
no
structure
you
know
is
is
not
good,
so
we're
this
is
a
jump
off
point
and
again
this
is
something
that's
been.
B
E
By
agencies
far
larger
than
us
for
far
longer
periods
of
time,
so
we
we
didn't
just
invent
something
here
I
mean
a
lot
of
you
know.
We
took
a
lot
of
guidance
here.
Of
course
it
does
become
agency
specific
at
a
certain
point,
but
for
the
most
part
we
stayed
pretty
true
to
the
to
the
research
that
that
was
done
here.
E
G
Mr
chairman,
I
would
just
like
to
offer
what
I
think
is
a
very
ticky
tacky
editorial
thing:
chief
zach
and
and
mr
tell
us,
on
category
d,
you'll
notice.
You've
got
violations
that
are
contrary
to
the
core
of
values
apd
or
that
involved,
and
it
says
a
substantial
risk
of
an
officer
or
public
safety
or
repeated
acts.
Is
that
meant
to
be
substantial
risk
to
an
officer
or
to
public
safety?.
E
Okay,
I'm
sorry
john:
where
are
you
looking
now.
C
G
And
I
think
what
you're
getting
at
is
that
the
violations
under
there
might
have
posed
a
risk
to
to
either
that
officer
or
other
officers
or
the
public,
and
it
just
says
of
an
office.
So
I
don't
know
if
there
was
something
I
was
looking
for
an
officer.
You
know
of
an
officer
doing
something
else
in
that
sentence,
and
it
just
it
lost
me.
I
think
rick's
agreeing
with
me.
A
Sure
sir
you're
correct
mr
henning
that
that
should
read
two:
it's
a
grammatical
error.
It's
right
there,
chief,
when
you,
when
you
get
at
the
top
of
category
d,
just
under
the
blue
bar
yeah,
the
description
of
category
d
says
substantial
risk
of
an
officer
and
it
should
reach
substantial
risk
to
an
officer.
E
E
C
All
I
have
unless
anyone
else
was
any
of
the
the
legal
department,
the
city
of
asheville
involved
with
us.
John
maddox,
were
you
I
didn't
know.
If
you
had
anything
to
say
about
this
or.
H
This
is
really
you
know,
one
of
those
things
it's
a
matter
of
departmental
policy.
It's
you
know
they
have
any
questions
about
where
the
guidelines
should
exist
or
where
you
know
gives
given
my
role
with
the
department
and
these
employee
disciplinary
matters.
They'll
seek
it
out,
but
this
is.
This
is
pure
policy
and
pure
policy
making.
G
And,
mr
chairman,
I
think
it's
a
good
time,
while
john
is
up
with
us
here
to
just
briefly
talk
procedurally
from,
as
I
understand
it
from
him,
and
he
just
mentioned.
This
is
just
a
purely
departmental
policy
that
does
not
require
city
council
approval.
After
this,
I
think
that
that
means
the
civil
service
board's
role
is
a
little
bit
more
limited
than
it
usually
would
be.
This
is
not
being
propounded
as
a
a
city
policy
as
a
departmental
level
policy,
meaning
that
you
don't
have
to
approve
it.
G
I
think
it's
being
provided
just
for
your
your
information.
As
john
says,
you
know,
you're
very
likely
to
hear
about
all
this
again
and
to
have
you
familiar
with
the
matrix
they're
using
as
it
comes
up
in
hearings
before
you
is
obviously
very
useful,
but
I
don't
think
you've
got
an
approval
role
here
today.
H
And
that's
when
it
comes
to
these
kinds
of
matters,
I
I
think
apd,
certainly
in
the
city,
wants
the
civil
service
board's
input,
because
you
know,
eventually,
you
might
be
asked
to
resolve
an
employee
grievance
dealing
with
these
kinds
of
matters.
If
you
have
concerns
about
the
policy
as
a
whole,
we
certainly
want
to
hear
them
now
and
either
explain
to
you
why
a
certain
choice
was
made
or
try
to
make
revisions.
If
we,
if
we
feel
like
there's
a
real
valid
concern
there.
H
This
is
different
from
say,
promotional
criteria
that
do
come
to
you
under
the
civil
service
act
for
your
approval.
So
that
means
you
know
the
standards
from
when
a
sergeant
becomes
a
lieutenant.
That
sort
of
thing
batters
thinks
that
the
fire
department
brings
you
a
lot
of
these
things
as
well,
but
these
kinds
of
things
it's
really
for
your
information.
B
John,
as
a
matter
of
procedure,
do
you
think
the
board
should
be
on
record
then
say
that
we've
reviewed
the
policy
as
presented
and
just
to
document
that
it
has
been
reviewed
formally
by
the
board.
Well,.
G
I
mean,
I
think,
the
fact
that
you're
having
reviewed
it
will
be
documented
in
the
minutes
of
this
video.
I
don't
think
you
need
to
take
any
form
of
action
about
one
way
or
another
and
another
way
to
think
about
it
and,
as
john
describes,
it's
not
you
know.
Due
to
your
new
substantive
rule,
you
don't
even
have
anything
to
say
about
the
vast
majority
of
disciplinary
actions
that
would
take
place
under
this
until
they
get
a
14-day.
G
C
B
Well,
chief,
are
there
any
other
comments
from
the
board?
If
not,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
being
here
today
and
sergeant
thomas.
Thank
you
also
for
all
the
work
you
did
on
the
document
and
the
department
also
for
those
who
aided
in
the
development
of
this
document
for
disciplinary
action.
So
thank
you
for
being
here.
We
appreciate
all
the
work
that
posse
has
done.
C
H
B
B
Okay,
no
live
comments,
any
agenda
items
for
future
meetings
and
from
the
board.
F
B
Vote:
hi,
okay,
rick
hi
carter,
hi
and
myself.
Thank
you,
alan
hi.
I
appreciate
all
you
being
here.
I'm
hopefully
carol
will
be
here
at
our
next
meeting,
whether
it's
september
or,
I
should
say
going
forth
october
or
I
don't
know
if
there'll
be
any
business
at
that
time
or
not,
but
thank
you
and
have
a
be
safe
out
there
thanks
folks,
hi
everybody.