►
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).
C
We'll
still
give
for.
C
C
Can
you
text
me
his
email
and
I'll
see
if
yeah
his
email
and
I'll
see
if
I
can
send
it.
C
A
A
A
A
C
Okay,
is
everybody
ready
to
get
started.
C
Okay,
it
is
2
38
on
thursday
december
5th,
and
I'd
call
the
december
meeting
of
the
asheville
civil
service
board
to
order
take
a
call
of
the
roll.
Mr
devereaux.
G
C
G
C
And
I'm
here
the
carol
goins
the
chair,
so
we
have
a
quorum
of
all
board
members.
I
will
ask
that
everybody
have
a
chance
to
review
the
agenda.
C
We
proceed
with
the
agenda
as
set
out
all
in
favor.
Let
it
be
known
by
saying
aye.
I
C
C
I
C
Okay,
hearing
none
aren't
who
no
so
we'll
move
into.
Is
there
any
well
the
unfinished
business
which
is
the
discussion
of
the
substantive
rules?
Did
everyone
have
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the?
I
guess,
the
second
draft
or
the
update
of
the
rules
that
were
provided
by
our
city
attorney
since
our
last
meeting.
C
Excuse
me:
does
anyone
have
any
comments
or
thoughts
or
they're?
These
are,
I
think,
slightly
different
from
our
last.
F
C
F
I'd
request-
maybe
john
henning
and
john
maddox
just
provide
a
maybe
a
little
brief
summary
about
the
the
sort
of
deliberations
that
happened
between
the
city
and
between
john
henning.
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
kind
of
familiar
with
that,
but
it
might
help
just
to
prime
the
pump
a
little
bit.
J
Certainly,
you
all
are
familiar
with
the
film
mad
max
goes
in
the
thunderdome
two
enter
one
leave.
It
was
a
lot
like
that
john
and
I
worked
together
on
this.
No,
mr
henning
and
I
had
a
very
productive
conversation.
J
J
Sort
of
this
resulted
in
a
couple
of
changes,
I'll
be
glad
to
go
through
here
and
john.
If
I,
if
I
miss
anything,
please
feel
free
to
jump
in
the
going
down
the
list
here.
Mr
henning
had
originally
proposed,
adding
in
a
definition
of
appeal,
so
that,
as
it
was
used
in
this
rule,
it
would
say
what
an
appeal
is.
J
I
I
decided
to
actually
make
it
unnecessary
to
have
to
define
what
an
appeal
is
by
just
wherever
the
rule
referred
to
appeal,
which
was
two
places
just
make
it
clear
that,
rather
than
having
to
have
a
separate
definition,
it
just
dealt
with
the
the
complaint
of
employment
action
or
something
like
that.
So
there's
no
need
to
have
a
separate
definition
of
appeal
in
this
rule.
J
You'll
notice
that
this
version
is
not
changed.
The
city
stands
pretty
steadfast
in
this
belief
that
the
employee,
who
is
who
resigns
their
employment,
resigns
their
employment
and
that
deprives
this
board
of
jurisdiction
over
their
claim.
Getting
into
discussions
about
constructive
termination
leaves
at
least
just
too
big
of
a
window
for
employees
to
resign
and
then
also
come
before
the
civil
service
board,
and
that's
something
that
the
city
feels
pretty
strongly
about.
J
So
if,
of
course,
this
board
is
free
to
pass
the
rule
differently
if
they,
if
they
like
or
if
you
amend
this
rule
change
and
then
leave
the
final
decision
on
that
to
the
city
council.
But
I
do
believe
that
in
the
cities
of
strong
opinion
that
these
rules
are
supposed
to
be
fairly
black
line,
you're
trying
to
not
believe
too
many
windows
to
crawl
through
these
to
get
around
these
rules
or
to
bring
things
before
the
board.
That
are
not
very
clearly
before
the
board.
J
If
somebody's
fired
they're
very
clearly
before
the
board,
if
somebody
resigns
they're
very
clearly
not
before
the
board
under
these
rules-
and
I
think
that
that
kind
of
bright
line
rule
serves
this
board
and
serves
the
city
and
ultimately
serves
the
employees
very
well,
because
it
makes
their
choices
very,
very
clear
at
the
outset.
So.
K
J
Was
one
area
where
mr
henning
and
I
discussed
it,
but
in
the
end
this
is
where
the
city
is
is
kind
of
standing.
Pat
on
this,
the.
H
Unless
more
members,
let
me
just
share
my
opinion
on
on
that
matter
with
you.
I
do.
I
thank
mr
maddox
for
his
his
cage
match
with
me.
He
is
a
dirty
fighter,
so
bringing
the
chair
in
was
just
not
that
wasn't
fair,
but
we
did
have
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this.
I
think
it's
one
of
the
more
contentious
points
we
still
I
see
in
the
whole
matter.
H
I
feel
like
the
law
would
support
and
and
the
way
that
that
analogous
we
don't
have
any
court
of
appeal
or
supreme
court
review.
Of
of
the
the
question
it
would
be
a
question
of
first
impression
about
whether
or
not
the
civil
service
act
would
encompass
your
review
of
a
determination
that
involved
a
resignation.
That's
involuntary.
H
There
are
longest
laws
that
are
fairly
similar
in
their
setup,
like
the
state
human
resources
act
sets
up
a
now,
there's
one
major
difference,
which
is
that
the
state
has
to
prove
just
cause,
and
we
do
have
we
know
specifically.
The
courts
have
told
us
that
the
justification
that
is
referred
to
in
the
civil
service
act
does
not
mean
just
cause.
That's
something
a
little
bit
higher
in
terms
of
of
the
standard
of
proof
that
the
employers
have
to
provide
in
that
case.
But
what
is
analogous
is
the
civil
service.
H
I
mean
the
state
human
resources
act
does
not
speak
to
resignation.
The
word
resignation
doesn't
appear
in
it,
just
as
it
doesn't
appear
in
the
civil
service
act,
but
what
the
courts
have
told
us
is
that
if
an
employee
is
involved
under
that
act
regarding
under
circumstances
that
are
involuntary,
in
other
words,
they're
told
you
will
be
fired.
If
you
don't
resign,
you
can
resign
in
that
circumstance
sustain.
His
employer
still
has
to
prove
that
it
has
what
you
would
call
justification
for
the
city
under
the
civil
service
act.
H
So
you
know
under
state
law.
The
state
is
put
upon
to
prove
that
it
had
that
just
cause.
I
don't
think
it's
too
much
to
ask
that
the
city,
in
the
same
circumstances,
with
one
proviso
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
second,
also
proved
that
it
would
have
had
justification
for
a
dismissal,
and
I
understand
the
city's
position
that
they
bargained
for
and
get
from
an
employee
who
resigns
the
the
surety
that
they
are
not
going
to
pursue
some
kind
of
appeal.
H
But
but
the
same
is
true
in
the
state
of
north
carolina
and
I
think
if,
if
we
don't
end
up
with
that,
as
a
rule,
I
do
think
that
it
would
still
be
best
if
we
could
agree
with
the
city
administration
about
how
they're
going
to
go
about
securing
resignations
in
a
way
that
maybe
makes
clear
to
an
employee
that
they,
they
know
they're,
giving
up
the
right
to
to
come
before
the
civil
service
board
and
in
a
way
that
that
could
put
all
of
your
minds
at
ease
that
employee
rights
are
being
fully
explained
to
them
and
embedded.
H
And
I
know
from
talking
to
john
that
that
is
the
intent
of
city,
administration
and
finally
I'll
just
say
that
I
do
feel
like
in
the
buchanan
matter
that
came
before
this
board
several
years
ago.
It
was
appealed
onto
superior
court
and
in
the
superior
court.
What
the
judge
ended
up
saying
on
an
initial
motion
to
dispose
of
the
matter
was
that
he
did
not
have
it
wasn't
right
for
review
in
in
superior
court.
Yet
because
this
board
had
said
we
have
an
employee
who
says
I
was
told,
resigner
be
fired,
she
did
resign.
H
That's
that's
as
good
as
a
dismissal
under
the
case,
so
it
remains
to
this
board
to
figure
out
whether
it's
justified
in
the
act.
So
it's
still
my
recommendation
that
you
keep
the
language
that
I
propose
for
you.
I
I
fully
expect
that
the
and
I'm
I'm
going
to
lay
out
for
the
city
of
an
explanation
for
the
city
council
about
why
we
feel
like
as
a
board,
if
it's
your
will
to
keep
it
in
there
that
we
feel,
like
that's,
appropriate
alan.
You
have
a
question.
A
Yeah-
and
I
was
just
gonna
comment
on
or
add
to
what
you're
saying
john.
So
your
finish,
your
your
thought,
I'm
sorry.
H
I
I
I
just
to
finish,
would
say
we
do
it
with
the
knowledge
that
it
is
in
the
civil
service
act,
that
it
is
the
city
council's
purview,
once
this
board
has
propounded
a
rule
to
make
adjustments
to
it
before
it's
finally
adopted,
and
so
you
can
see
that
there
will
be
a
attention
of
ideas
as
to
what
should
be
in
the
final
rule.
That
will
be
up
to
the
city
council
to
make
a
final
determination.
H
A
A
H
The
board
to
put
that
into
a
proposed
rule,
I
certainly
will
help
you
find
language
that
doesn't,
I
tend
to
agree
with
the
city
that
some
limit
around
what
kind
of
constructive
termination
can
actually
come
before
this
board
is
needed.
I
do
I
mean
I
think
that
I
can
draw
a
really
straight
line
between
the
city
says
you
will
be
fired
if
you
don't
go
on
and
resign
and
and
justification
under
the
civil
service
act.
H
I'm
I
am.
I
share
the
city's
concern
and
I
I
tend
to
agree
that
if
you
open
it
up
to
the
boss,
looked
at
me
cross-eyed
and
I
felt
like
I
had
to
quit,
and
and
now
that
was
a
hostile
work
environment.
I
don't
think
that's
really
spelled
out
within
the
act.
I
do
think
you
pretty
quickly
outside
of
the
scope,
the
clear
scope
of
what's
in
the
act.
H
There
is
also
a
forum
for
somebody
who
claims
that
that
the
hostile
work
environment
was
because
of
some
characteristics
of
theirs.
In
other
words,
a
discrimination
claim
they've
got
a
venue
for
that
and
we're
not
it.
So
that's
right,
and
I
think
so,
if
it
helps
you
correct,
if
it
helps
you
to
know
that
you
know
somebody
in
that
circumstance
who
who
claims?
Well,
it's
just
such
a
terrible
environment.
J
So
I
I
think
I
think
mr
henning
is
very
astutely,
pointed
out
that
you
know
we
have
a
difference
of
opinion
here
where
the
city
wants
to
see
and
how
mr
henning
thinks
to
advise
you
on
that,
and
I
I
think
is
he
has
not
misstated
the
state
of
the
law
even
a
little
bit.
I
completely
agree
with
him
that
that
is
the
current
state
of
the
law
in
north
carolina.
I
do.
J
I
would
like
to
point
out,
though,
that
other
municipalities
in
dealing
with
their
workforce
do
not
have
civil
service
boards
most
other
municipalities.
This
is
a
special
thing,
we're
not
the
state.
The
state
has
a
as
a
state
employment
act
that
applies
to
state
employees
and
other
municipalities
have
do
not
have
these
kinds
of
restrictions
on
how
they
have
to
handle
their
workforces,
but
then
buncombe
county,
the
sheriff's
office
when
they
want
to
discipline,
employee
or
or
separate
employment
with
an
employee.
They
don't
have
these
kinds
of
hurdles
that
they
have
to
jump
through.
J
So
we
I
we,
the
city,
feels
that
a
narrow
construction
of
of
jurisdiction
is
more
appropriate
here
when
this
is
a
sort
of
extraordinary
remedy
that
applies
only
to
the
city
of
asheville.
Now
I
will
say
that
mr
henning's
right,
our
employees
are
well
informed
prior
to
making
a
decision
to
resign.
That's
something
that
we
do
our
damnest
to
make
sure
that
they
know
their
rights.
I
was
in
a.
I
was
in
a
meeting
earlier
this
week
explaining
I
had
the
employee
really
wanted
to
resign.
He
was
I
wanted
as
soon
as
he
realized.
J
J
Then
the
superior
court
court
of
appeals
all
the
way
up
to
the
to
the
north
carolina
supreme
court.
If
you
resign,
then,
and
if
you're
fired,
that
the
fact
that
you
were
fired
is
a
public
record
and
the
letter
that
we
give
you
stating
the
reasons
for
your
termination
is
a
public
record.
If
you
resign,
you
lose
the
liberal
service
board
appeal
rights.
You
lose
all
your
rights
on
the
civil
service
act.
J
However,
you
are
able
to
go
to
employer
and
say
in
all
honesty
that
you
resigned
your
employment
and
there's
no
record
out
there.
Public
record
made
that
you
were
terminated
so
there's
value
there
and
we
do
our
dams
to
make
sure
that
employees
understand
that.
J
So
I
feel
like
by
foreclosing
constructive
termination
here,
it's
clear
and
we're
able
to
proceed
as
an
employer
in
a
way
that
everybody
knows
the
rules
up
front
and
we're
not
having
having
people
take
second
bites
at
the
apple
where
they
resign
their
employment
and
then
they
then
they
decide
they
want
to
go
to
civil
service
board,
which
is
we
have
had
happen
in
other
cases.
B
I'm
sorry
I
just
john
maddox:
can
you
is
that
procedure?
The
procedure
where
you
know
you
tell
the
employee
is
that
written
down
someplace?
Do
you
have
the
employee?
Do
we
have
the
employee
recognize
that
differential?
In
writing?
I
mean
to
maybe
give
the
civil
service
board
some
more
assurance
that
that
process,
that
you
know
you
make
it
very
clear:
here's
what
you're
getting
here's,
what
you're
giving
up?
B
J
I
will
say
that
we're
hoping
to
standardize
that
more
has
been
a
part
of
this
broader
push
to
update
the
city's
policies
that
has
been
ongoing
for
the
past.
I
know
that
I've
been
real
involved
with
that
effort
for
about
a
year
now,
but
what
about
a
year
ago,
we
all
went
on
on
lockdown,
I'm
sad
to
say
so.
That's
really
throwing
a
wrench
in
that.
However,
I
would
love
to
see
in
the
future
that,
before
any
employee
resigns
their
employment,
that
they're
given
a
form
that
explains
these
rights
to
them.
J
I
I'm
certainly
fine
with
that,
and
I
know
shannon's
right
here
and
she
can
tell
you
that
I
think
that's
something
that
hr
strives
to
do
some
of
the
time
the
it
all
seems
very
clear-cut
in
your
hypotheticals,
but
when
you've
got
employees
who
are
unwilling
to
engage
with
with
management
or
what
I'm
going
to
talk
with
with
the
with
hr
or
not
willing
to
engage
they're
hard
to
get
a
hold
of,
sometimes
it's
hard
to
make
sure
that
they're
fully
informed
before
they
make
these
decisions.
J
So
it's
not
there's
not
a
cookie
cutter
resignation,
termination
decision
we
try
as
best
we
can,
but
that's
why
I
say
that
to
say
that
somebody
has
an
absolute
right
that
we're
going
to
do
this
every
single
time,
and
I
don't
want
to
make
something
that
black
letter
as
far
as
an
obligation,
usually
it's
possible.
I
will
say
sometimes
it's
not.
Would
you
even
say
that's
the
occasion
to
fully
inform
somebody
that
way.
D
Yes,
I
would
agree
that
we
do.
We
make
every
effort
to
make
sure
employees
understand
and
between
hr
and
legal.
We.
We
reiterate
that
but
john's
point.
Sometimes
there
are
unique
circumstances
where
it
is
difficult
to
have
a
conversation
with
an
employee
or
to
make
sure
that
they
do
understand
and
we're
certainly
open
to
suggestions
and
can
work
with
legal,
as
we
continue
to
work
on
our
policies
to
have
a
more
formalized
approach
to
that.
H
I
think
that
there
are
fallback
positions
that
can
make
that
that
truly
fall
within
your
your
realm,
of
ensuring
the
more
efficient
and
and
fair
administration
of
the
the
civil
service
and-
and
it's
best
for
the
city
too,
to
to
streamline
and
be
a
part
of
assisting
with.
You
know,
processes
that
make
clear
when
somebody's
resigned,
they
they
know
what
what
they
have
done.
So
that's
that's
still
before
you
to
do.
Even
if
you
don't
wind
up
with
a
rule
that
makes
clear
you
have
jurisdiction
over
a
case
like
this.
H
H
It
says
that
if
somebody
does
resign,
it
is
presumptively
a
voluntary
resignation
and
they
have
to
prove
it
puts
a
further
burden
on
the
employee
of
showing
that
there's
a
direct
cause
between.
I
was
told
that
I
would
be
fired
and
I
chose
to
resign,
but
I
was
given
no
other
choice,
so
that's
I
just
want
to
make
clear
that
I
don't
it's
not
certainly
not
intended
to
be
a
a
wide-open
window.
G
One
question
I've
got
when
employees
are
they.
This
is
kind
of
maybe
a
bad
question
or
poor
question,
but
did
do.
Are
employees
really
aware
of
the
civil
service
board?
I
mean
it's
such
a
unique
that
they
they
are
changing,
yeah
yeah,
so
they
most
of
you
would
say
a
large
portion
of
city
employees
know
what
the
civil
service
board
does
and
what
their
rights
are.
With
the
civil
service
board.
H
If
john
maddox
wants
to
go
on
to
the
next
thing,
there
are
a
couple
other
areas
where
we
you
know
he
beat
me
down
on
on
an
agreement
about
language
through
our
cage
match.
G
A
J
That
was
actually
probably
the
hardest
one.
I
think
the
rest
of
them
are
going
to
be
relatively
easy.
The
the
next
ones
that
I
the
next
change
I
see
at
john
I
discussed
this
was
a
improvement
suggested
by
by
mr
henning.
I
know
we
got
two
john's,
it's
just
it
just
bothers
him
that
way
we
get
down
to
the
definition
of
entitled
it
talks
about
and
to
whether
it
be
you
know,
an
employee
has
a
right
to
an
appeal,
a
denial
of
promotion
or
raising
paid
which
the
employee
is
entitled.
J
Well.
Here
we
have
an
absolute
right
for
promotion
or
to
a
position
within
the
classified
service,
so
that
would
that's
the
change
right
there
to
a
position
within
the
classified
service.
You
remember,
we
had
a
hearing
where
somebody
was
grieving
and
not
getting
promoted
to
a
position
outside
the
classified
service,
and
this
makes
clear
that
it's
only
positions
within
the
classified
service.
That's
one
change
or
raise
and
pay
automatically
to
an
employee
based
on
time
and
service,
achievement
of
certification
or
placement
on
a
rank
eligibility
list.
So
the
change
there
is
achievement
certification.
J
We
have
some
employees
or
some
positions
that,
but
I
think
primarily
in
the
fire
department
that,
upon
obtaining
some-
I
don't
know
your
hazmat
certified
or
you.
You
obtain
some
sort
of
medical
certification
that
that
comes
what
they
raise
and
pay,
and
if
that
is
something
that
they're
automatically
entitled
to,
that
would
be
a
raise
and
pay
to
which
they
are
entitled
and
if
they
do
not
receive
it.
J
If
they're
entitled
to
that
under
city
policy-
and
they
do
not
receive
it,
then
that
would
be
something
that
would
come
before
the
sports
jurisdiction.
And
that
was
a
suggestion.
Mr
henning,
I
think
it's
very
very
well
met.
A
If
you
don't
mind,
we
didn't
discuss
this.
How
you
didn't
review
this?
I
have
a
question
about
the
disciplinary
matrix
that's
referred
to
in
b4,
and
that
is
it's
my
understanding
that
the
matrix
has
not
been
formally
approved
by
the
apd
number
one.
A
A
J
First
of
all,
you
absolutely
can
go
ahead
and
pass
this,
even
if
the
chief
has
not
passed
off
on
a
departmental
policy,
yet
the
in
fact
the
matter
is.
I
thought
we
spoke
with
chief
zach
about
an
hour
ago
on
this
fact
he
couldn't
be
here
today.
I
mean
he
wanted
me
to
pass
on
this.
With
regards
to
that,
he
has
told
the
various
employment
unions
or
the
various
employee
associations
that
he
is
completely
in
favor
of
a
disciplinary
matrix
and,
what's
more,
is
they
can
pick
it?
J
J
So
the
fact
that
now-
and
that's
also
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
by
the
idea
that
this
is
something
that
would
come
before
the
civil
service
board.
This
is
not
something
that
would
fall
under
civil
service.
Board's
purview,
you're
welcome
to
review
it,
but
it's
not
something
that
is
not
a
promotional
process
or
criteria
that
would
fall
under
the
civil
service
board's
review
authority.
Mr
hangman,
am
I
correct
on
that?
Am
I
am
I
missing
something?
Is
this
a
new
policy
or
it's
a
policy,
but
you
do
not
pass
off
on
apd
policy.
H
Yeah,
let
me
I'm
looking
at
the
act
itself,
so
bear
with
me
just
a
second.
H
And
alan,
I
guess
that's
right,
we
have
been.
We
have
become
accustomed
to
most
every
change
in
policy
that
well,
it's
all
the
policies
that
are
brought
before
the
board
to
be
reviewed
and
approved,
but
they
they
have
all
been
more
like
a
like
promotional
or
or
the
I
mean.
I
guess
you
would.
I
don't
know
whether
you'd
really
consider
just
sort
of
physician
classifications
to
be
promotional,
necessarily
but
criteria.
J
That
they
are
able
to
review
and
approve.
H
It
it
is
true
that
it's
not
in
the
act
as
every
I
mean.
Certainly
you
don't
pass
on
every
departmental
policy.
I
mean
you
know
you
wouldn't
look
at
like
I
don't
know,
recording
retention
standards
or
something.
J
H
A
J
Disciplinary
matrix-
and
this
is
something
that
we
would
not
want
to
hold
up
the
board
from
passing
on
these
rules
here,
because
apd
has
yet
to
adopt
a
disciplinary
matrix
that
the
chief
of
police
has
said
he's
more
than
willing
to
put
into
place,
especially
since
this
would
be
holding
up
rules
for
the
entire
city
based
on
on
just
one
department.
J
In
addition
to
that,
given
that
the
chief
police
is
so
very
willing
to
put
this
in
place,
city
council
is
not
going
to
vote
on
this
at
this
next
meeting,
which
is
on
december,
the
8th
there's
not
time
for
enough
to
get
it
on
the
agenda.
It
would
be
january
before
the
board,
or
before
this
before
the
city
council
could
even
take
this
matter
up
and,
if
need
be,
the
city
council
could
make
its
adoption
of
that
effective
upon
the
the
apd's
disciplinary
matrix
being
put
into
place.
J
Part
of
this
is
being
held
up
because,
as
we
know,
last
meeting
the
pba
has
been
really
in
the
mix
on
this
and
been
really
good
partners
on
these.
On
these
rules
and
on
these
kinds
of
decisions,
rick
tullis
is
sadly
still
very
ill,
and
we
haven't
been
able
to.
I
would
want
to
have
his
input
on
any
kind
of
disciplinary
matrix
that
was
put
in
place
because,
as
chief
sack
noted,
he
told
he
told
rick
that
you
guys
pick
it
I'll
put
it
in
place.
H
I
also
think
allen
that
to
some
extent
the
city,
the
two
the
toothpaste,
is
out
of
the
tube
a
little
bit
on
on
disciplinary
matrix.
Once
once
it's
gotten
into
this,
this
rule
I
mean,
I
think
that
there
there
at
least
is
some
room
for
an
employee
to
come
before
you
and
say:
look
they
didn't
even
adopt
one,
and
I
didn't
get
any
chance
to
prove
that
I
didn't
deserve
this
discipline,
because
that's
the
purpose
of
the
thing
to
begin
with
right,
it's
showing
an
employee.
H
H
To
begin
with,
I
think,
as
long
as
the
the
notion
that
the
city
is
headed
toward
disciplinary
matrices
for
its
departments
is
out
there
is
that
some
exposure
for
argument
that
you
can
tell
this
is
not
a
reasonable
dismissal
of
me
and
that's
what
you
the
kind
of
argument
you
might
hear
as
a
board
until
the
city
does
get
around
to
adoption
of
those
so
yeah.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
the
city's
best
interest
to
go
on
and
adopt
them.
A
J
And
john's
point
is
well
taken
that
you
know
if
the
employee
is
disciplined
in
a
department
that
does
not
utilize
disciplinary
matrix,
they
might
say
that
that
is,
that
is
somehow
depriving
them
of
due
process.
But
note
the
disciplinary
matrixes
are
are
more
routine
in
the
law
enforcement,
possibly
in
the
firefighter
field.
I
don't
believe
they're
so
common
when
other
departments
such
as
you
know,
sanitation,
public
works.
That
sort
of
thing
where
the
range
of
problem
possible
misconduct
is
a
little
less.
It's
a
little
cloudier
there.
So,
okay.
H
Moving
on
and
alan
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong
about
this,
but
I
feel
pretty
comfortable
with
the
idea
that
you
know
sanitation
worker
doesn't
he
you
know
doesn't
need
a
broad
range
of
sort
of
the
job
is
what
the
job
is
and
as
long
as
you,
you
know,
perform
it
reasonably
well
and
don't
engage
in.
You
know
some
terrible
personal
conduct,
you're,
probably
going
to
be
okay,
more
complicated,
like
law
enforcement,
that's
where
it
makes
sense
to
really
spell
it
all
out.
H
J
So,
if
we're
good
on
that,
there's
no
more
questions
on
that.
I
was
going
to
move
down
here
to
this
definition
of
suspension,
so
the
board-
you
all
noted
that
previously-
and
this
is
based
on
old
civil
service
board
rules
and
even
a
part
of
the
city's
current
personnel
ordinance
talks
about
a
suspension-
is
unpaid
or
involuntary
leave
of
more
than
10
consecutive
work
shifts.
J
Well,
I
y'all
said
well:
doesn't
this
raise
some
issues
with
the
firefighters
and
I
said
well
when
it
comes
to
talking
about
firefighter
pay
issues
and
understanding
some
of
these
things?
I
I
need
to
talk
to
chief
burnett.
I
spoke
with
chief
burnett
in
the
interim
since
your
last
meeting.
I
said
civil
service
board
raised
this
raised
this
as
a
concern.
He
said,
they're
absolutely
right.
It
is
a
concern.
J
He
said
if
a
firefighter
firefighter
loses
10
consecutive
shifts,
that's
basically
a
month
of
work
for
them
right,
whereas
somebody
else
who
is
10
consecutive
ships
they're,
basically
losing
two
weeks
of
work
monday
friday,
monday
to
friday
cycles.
So
it
does
result
in
some
inequities.
So
we
talked
about.
We
thought
the
most
equitable
way
to
do.
This
would
be
to
make
it
14
calendar
day.
J
Suspension
is
what
then
anything
less
than
that
it's
not
going
to
be
subject
to
civil
service
board
jurisdiction,
but
anything
over
that
is
going
to
count
as
a
suspension
for
purposes
of
civil
service
board
jurisdiction,
and
I
think
that's
going
to
be
more
equitable,
because
you're
you're
basically
going
to
be
getting
at
a
paycheck
for
somebody,
and
once
you
start
to
get
at
more
than
a
paycheck.
H
J
J
The
next
one
was
a
big
one,
and
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
this
is
probably
the
main
discussion.
We
had
the
last
time
that
we
met
and
talked
about
what
counts
as
a
abusive
discretion
standard
remember
before
we
had
whether
something
was
grossly
unreasonable,
illegal
or
or
patently
unreasonable.
Something
like
that.
A
lot
of
adjectives
and
this
board
indicated
that
y'all
were
not
as
as
on
board
with
those.
J
So
I
have
acquiesced
and
the
city
is
acquiesced
and
we
have
come
back
off
of
that
slightly
and
you
see
that
now
under
four,
there
is
abusive
discretionary
decision,
that's
clearly
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary,
and
this
is
coming
from
a
definition
that
I
believe
mr
henning
found
and
the
city's
agreeable
to
that
city
council.
I
can't
speak
for
the
city
council
here,
but
I
imagine
they
will
would
be
on
board
with
that
language.
H
Board
members,
I
feel
like
the
this
standard
and
I
still
have
to
point
to
carter
for
finding
actually
found
that
language
in
some
case
law.
I
think
it's
a
better
fit
for
what
your
concerns
were,
because
I
do
think
you're
really
kind
of
the
minimus.
You
know
guy
gets
a
speeding
ticket
on
his
own
time.
Out
of
the
town,
you
know
city
vehicle
and
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
his
employment.
You
you
could
potentially
find
that's.
H
That's
not
a
it's
a
you
know
it's
an
unreasonable
basis
for
an
outright
dismissal,
for
example.
So
I
think
it
gets
us
to
where
you
were
trying
to
go
in
terms
of
of
your.
G
A
And
we've
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
in
the
past,
an
employee
violating
any
law,
and
I
still
feel
that
that's
rather
broad
and
the
violation
could
be
so
minor
and
yet
could
be
used
as
a
reason
for
this
missile.
A
Is
this
really
just
cause
for
to
justify
dismissal
receiving
due
process?
I'm
not
sure
I'm
just
raising
that,
but
the
concern
is
on
on
both
sides,
both
with
the
the
language
of
any
law
which
may
not
even
be
related
to
the
work
environment
and
then
due
process.
How
is
that
really
defined
there?
Is
that
really
just
cause
so
john
heading?
You
may
want
to
respond
and
then
john
managed.
I'm.
H
Happy
to
I
feel
like,
as
I
was
just
getting
it
there's
the
you've
got
to
put
all
of
those
sections
together.
They,
you
know
number
two
says
what
we're
going
to
consider
per
se
justified,
but
then
it
is
explained
further
in
three
four
and
five
about
about
what
exactly
the
city
still
has
to
show,
and
so
I
think
alan,
that
the
the
language
we've
landed
on
number
four
about
defining
abuse
of
discretion,
so
one
they
got
to
show
justification.
H
Well,
what
has
to
be
shown
for
justification
when
you're
talking
about
violation
of
law
or
policy?
It's
whether
or
not
the
supervisor
abuse
their
discretion.
What
does
abuse
discretion
mean?
We
define
it
as
clearly
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary
if
it
comes
before
this
board.
While
I'm
your
attorney
and
you've
got
a
you
know,
if
somebody
can
make
a
showing
that
they
did
some,
you
know
a
violation,
that's
so
minimal
and
so
unrelated
to
anything
to
do
with
their
employment.
H
I
think
that
I
could
advise
you
when
it
has
become
clearly
unreasonable
in
terms
of
the
supervisor's
decision
to
dismiss
them
so
the
again
the
parking
ticket
that
is
on
the
employee's
own
time
and
own
you
know
in
their
own
vehicle,
don't
have
it
like
a
connection
to
the
to
their
employment
with
the
city.
I
think
you
could
say
that's
unreasonable
where
it's
arbitrary.
G
Well,
I
had
expressed
a
concern
about
that
as
well,
but
pointed
out
that
the
abuse
of
discretion,
the
change
to
the
definition
of
abusive
discretion,
kind
of
comforted
him
a
little
bit
more.
So
I'm
less
concerned
about
it.
After
hearing
that
from.
J
Him
I
do
think
it's
important
that
we
talk
on
this
point
for
just
a
second,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
all
clear
and,
in
the
same
place
with
this,
the
abuse
of
discretion
deals
with
the
department
of
director's
decision
that
a
law
was
violated
or
that
city
or
departmental
policy
was
violated
by
the
employee
employee.
So
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
make
it
sound
like
that.
J
That
gives
gives
this
board
the
ability
to
decide
that
his
decision
about
the
amount
of
punishment
that
was
imposed
was
unreasonable
based
on
the
violation
law.
Basically
the
board's
decision,
whether
the
the
department
director's
decision,
whether
the
the
law
was
violated,
whether
a
policy
actually
occurred,
is
what
is
going
to
be
subject
to
that
abuse,
discretion
standards.
J
So
I
think
you're,
you're,
actually
carter
and
now
I
think,
you're
very
right
to
point
out
that,
if
somebody's
being
fired
based
on
a
violation
of
any
law
that
it
does,
it
does
deprive
you
of
some
ability
to
go
back
and
say
that
we
don't
agree
that
that
the
punishment
fits
the
crime.
J
That's
why
we
have
the
department,
the
the
idea
of
the
matrix
is
going
to
be
so
important,
because,
if
somebody's
fired,
because
they
got
a
parking
ticket
on
their
own
time,
I
hope
to
god-
that's
not
going
to
be
justified
by
any
kind
of
disciplinary
matrix,
and
at
that
point
they
would
not
have
received
due
process,
because
the
discipline
has
to
accord
with
the
disciplinary
matrix.
H
That
told
me
that
this
was
such
a
problem,
and-
and
so
you
know,
I
think
that
that's
yeah
that
probably
does
take
care
of
a
lot
of
the
the
what
would
otherwise
be
to
minimize
cases
like
the
parking
ticket.
The
speeding
ticket,
something
like
that
is,
is
not
going
to
jump
somebody
right
up
to
level
5
discipline
and
and
dismissal,
and
once
you
see
that
I
think
you'll
feel
a
lot
more
comfortable
with
that
short
of
that.
It's
not
this
board's
problem
that
that's
not
spelled
out
and
that's.
H
Why,
like,
I
said
before
alan
that
I
feel,
like
you
know,
the
idea
of
disciplinary
matrix
is
out
there.
It's
the
city's
risk
until
they
get
those
adopted
that
you
may
well
hear
a
case
that
you
say
we're
not
comfortable
that
you
fit
that
with
it.
That
you've
got
due
process
because
of
the
the
discipline
that
you
received.
F
F
J
And
I
think
you've
expressed
it
exactly
right.
I
I
don't
actually
agree
with
mr
henning
here
respectfully
that
if
a
department
doesn't
have
a
disciplinary
matrix,
that
it
opens
the
door
for
a
finding
of
some
kind
of
a
due
process,
violation
if
the
if
this
board
feels
like
the
punishment,
doesn't
fit
the
crime
because
by
if
you
read
this,
this
says
that
the
process
is
noticeable
allegations
and
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
prior
to
the
decision
and
if
a
department
has
a
disciplinary
matrix,
then
discipline
in
accordance
with
that
matrix.
J
If
not,
then
that's
not.
I
don't
think
part
of
the
part
of
the
calculus
well.
H
And
respectfully,
I
think
that
the
whole
idea
of
whether
or
not
we're
talking
about
punishments
fitting
crimes
is
a
little
bit
of
a
canard.
Because,
again,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
say
we're
applying
a
bottom
line.
Definition
of
what
you
think
is
justified
and
justified,
based
on
a
dismissal
for
any
violation
of
law
or
policy
is
whether
or
not
the
the
supervisor
abused
their
discretion.
Then
that
in
turn
is
what
is
clearly
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary,
and
now
I
don't
think
this.
H
A
I
just
still
have
a
problem
with
it
being
a
bit
too
broad
by
saying
a
law
and
or
any
law,
and
I
don't
know
why
we
can't
say,
for
example,
in
like
c3,
employee
violated
a
city
or
departmental
policy
rather
than
having
the
law
in
there
too.
F
I
mean,
let's,
let's
be
real
here
I
mean
on
any
given
day.
Any
supervisor
can
reasonably
ascertain
that,
probably
any
one
of
their
employees
at
some
point
during
their
tenure
violated.
You
know
a
policy
rule
or
code.
I
mean
it
just
that's
called
life.
So
if
you
accept
that,
then
that
would
allow
a
supervisor
to
arbitrarily
take
employment
action
just
because
he
or
she
would
have
that
in
their
hip
pocket.
I
can
find
an
instance
where
you
you
were
late
to
work.
F
One
day
you
got
a
parking
ticket,
you
you
took
home
a
paper
clip
that
was
city
property.
I
don't
know
what
it
is.
So
if
we're
not
allowed
to
apply
some
kind
of
clearly
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary
standard
to
those
kind
of
actions-
and
I
would
say,
there's
no
reason
to
have
a
civil
service
board,
I
agree.
Well,
I
will
never
have
anything
to
write.
J
I
think
that
you
can
apply
a
clearly
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary
standard
to
the
decision
about
whether
a
policy
was
actually
violated,
whether
you
this
I'll,
give
you
a
perfect
example.
A
department
director
believes
that
a
an
employee
lied
about
something.
J
Well,
what
standard
are
you
going
to
use
to
determine
whether
that
was
in
fact
the
case
well
was
the
was
that
clearly
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary.
His
decision
that
the
employee
told
a
lie
about
something.
J
This
board
has
come
to
a
different
decision
and
a
very
high
profile
case
regarding
that,
and
it
came
to
that
decision
after
that
members
of
this
board
expressed
that
they
felt
like
they
didn't
have
good
way
to
judge
how
they
were
to
weigh
the
department
director's
decision.
That's
why
that
a
policy
violation
occurred.
That's
why
this
exists
here.
That's
that's
the
reason
for
this,
and
with
this
in
place,
hopefully
that
would
come
to
a
a.
J
A
Alan
well
yeah
and
just
adding
to
rick's
comment.
Ultimately,
these
are
our
rules
that
we
need
to
adopt.
So
I,
I
think
the
final
decision
rests
with
the
board
to
whether
they
want
to
approve
this
or
not.
J
The
the
this
board
are
absolutely
right.
This
board
is
free
to
pass
whatever
it
wants
as
far
as
its
proposed
rule
and
then
the
city
council
and
is
ultimately
the
the
arbiter.
So
if
you
want
to
see
something
different
there
and
the
majority
of
the
board
passes
this
with
different
language
there,
then
that
is
what
the
city
council
will
consider
to
amend
or
adopt.
A
That
kind
of
limiting
to
that
it
has
to
be
in
charge
of
violation.
J
G
F
I
mean
I
I
I
think
you
know
the
way
john
henning
explained
it
initially
made
sense
to
me.
I
don't
know
how
to
to
to
write
this
down
properly,
but
the
idea
that
if
an
employee
is
shown
to
have
violated
any
law,
departmental
policy,
rule
or
code
of
conduct,
that
gets
you
that
that's
that's
a
per
se
justified.
F
Clearly,
so
that
gets
us
out
of
the
you
know.
We
just
disagree
with
the
supervisor,
but
I
think
until
we
can
have
some
assurance
that
my
hypothetical,
that
a
20-year
employee
could
be
fired
for
a
parking
ticket
as
long
as
they
can
prove
that
he
got
a
parking
ticket
and
that
we
have
no
discretion
to
say
that
that's
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary.
H
And
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
it
appears
that
we
we've
got
such
a
difference
in
philosophy
that
we
probably
need
to
pause
on
that
and
try
to
wordsmith
it
a
little
bit
where
we
all
get
either
either
somewhere,
that
we're
all
comfortable
with
or
that
this
board
is
comfortable,
proposing
the
rule,
and
then
the
city
council
does
what
they
do
with
it.
I
had
originally
toyed
with
some
language
that
I
hope
that
the
standard
and
what
I
I
explained,
my
understanding
of
it.
H
I
thought
that
was
going
to
get
us
where
we
needed
to
be.
I
toyed
with
some
language
about
whether
something
might
be
de
minimis.
It's
not
something
the
city
is
going
to
be
comfortable
with,
regardless
of
somewhat
with
mr
max's
characterization,
of
of
your
having
substituted
judgment
on
a
just.
You
know
not
at
this
departmental
rule
violation
where
that
I
don't
know
that
over
simplifies
the
question
that
was
before
you,
I
think,
but
I
feel
like
we're
going
to
need
a
little
bit
more
time
to
work
on
some
language.
J
I
I
will
say
this:
if
we're
not
going
to
to
take
a
vote
on
these
rules
today,
I'm
going
to
ask
that
the
board
reconvene
next
week,
then,
because
I
do
not
want
to
leave
this
for
another
month.
I
don't
think
I
know
the
city
council
doesn't
want
this
to
wait
for
another
month.
I
know
that
we
have
employees
who
have
shown
some
some
real
interest
in
this,
and
I'm
these
these.
J
We
have
to
have
some
rules
regarding
how
these
things
are
going
to
be
handled.
It's
been,
it's
been
really
really
difficult
to
figure
out
employee
relations
and
how
how
we're
going
to
do
them.
We
have
this
hanging
question
of
the
civil
of
the
civil
service
sports
jurisdiction.
It
is.
We've
got
to
move
this
across
the
goal
line.
So
if
we're
going
to
take
time
to
wordsmith
anymore,
I
would
ask
that
the
board
take
this
up
in
a
special
meeting
next
week.
F
With
all
due
respect,
I
mean
we
have
waited
for
for
draft
rules
for
some
time
and
it
wasn't
only
our
last
meeting
that
we
got
a
first
cut
at
that.
J
Me
walk
it
back
a
bit
if
we
have
department
directors
who
are
routinely
firing,
employees
for
parking
tickets
that
they
receive,
not
in
the
context
of
employment,
they're
not
going
to
be
department
directors,
very
long
with
with
this
city
management
or
really
in
any
city
management
that
I
can
imagine,
because
that
is
not
just
and
that's
not
a
right
thing
to
do,
and
they
would
not
be
acting
in
a
right
way,
but
we're
not
very
very
rarely
having
parking
ticket
kind
of
claims
come
before
this
board.
J
We
can't
if
we're
going
to
have
some
discretion
lying
in
the
hands
of
the
department
directors,
without
this
board
coming
back
and
overruling
even
what
we
feel
like
are
pretty
clear
cases.
A
Alan
we
began
this
discussion
of
drafting
substantive
rules
back
on
november
7th
of
2019.
I
believe
I
was
carrying
or
serving
as
acting
chair,
I'm
sorry
of
that
meeting.
So
I
don't
see
a
problem
of
waiting
another
month
with
john
henning
sitting
down
with
john
maddox
and
working
out
on
some
language
that
the
board
would
agree
to
and
then
meeting
in
january
and
not
having
a
special
meeting,
let's
say
next
week.
A
I
think
it
I'd
rather
have
the
two
sit
down
and
work
that
through
and
then
bring
this
back
at
our
regular
meeting
january
of
2021,
it's
been
a
year.
J
It
has
been
a
year,
but
in
that
year
we've
dealt
with
a
couple
of
things
that
have
delayed
this,
but
we
have
quickly
reached
a
point
where
it
needs
to
happen,
and
I
know
ms
whistler's
here
if
she
would
like
to
speak
the
fact
that
the
city
council
needs
to
see
this
and
by
waiting
another
month.
We
have
to
take
more
time
to
get
it
on
the
city
council
agenda,
so
it
would
not
be
just
a
month
long
delay.
It
would
actually
be
far
longer
than
that
councilwoman.
If
you
want
to
speak
to
that.
B
So
my
it's
slated
right
now,
john
maddox.
I
I'm
sorry,
I'm
saying
everybody's
last
name,
but
mr
maddox,
it's
slated
for
our
january
12th
meeting
right.
B
Right
so
I
mean
I
would
just
really
urge
this
board
to
get
to
the
point,
and
you
know
maybe
it's
not
next
week,
but
you
know,
could
you
could
you
shoot
for
the
first
week
in
january
to
have
another
meeting
to
you
know
I
mean
I'm
I'm
unclear,
but
but
I
really
would
like
you
not
to
wait
because
I
mean
basically,
you
would
have
another
meeting
the.
B
Yeah,
but
we
can't
I
mean
it
needs
to
be.
That
would
be
the
thursday
before
the
meeting
the
the
rules
get
published.
I
mean
the
the
agenda
etc
and
all
the
documentation
gets
published
the
very
next
day.
So
that
really
puts
you
guys
I
mean
under
under
the
gun.
If
there's
one
word
change,
then
it's
not
going
to
go
on
the
city's
agenda.
B
So
could
I
ask
you
to
move
it
up,
move
it
up
like
more
toward
the
beginning
of
that
week,
like
instead
of
thursday,
you
know,
could
you
do
the
monday
january
4th
you
know
so
that
if
we
do
have
little
minor
awarding
changes
after
that
it
can
absolutely
get
in
front
of
city
council.
J
And
when,
with
the
lead
time
the
council
needs
you
have
to,
you
have
check-ins,
you
have
right,
there's
the
the
brent
there's
the
there
there's
the
I'm
sorry
my
mind.
Is
it's
been
a
long
meeting
so
far
there
there's
the
check-ins.
There
is
the
discussions
that
need
to
happen
with
council
because
they
have
to
pass
on
the
final
set
of
rules
if
they
want
to
see
changes.
J
There's
there's
a
lot
of
things
and
then
maggie
has
her
own
set.
The
city
clerk
has
their
own
set
of
rules
for
when
things
can
be
placed
on
the
agenda
and
that
I
I
know
that
if,
if
this
gets
kicked
into
january,
it's
going
to
be
much
later,
it's
not
going
to
make
january
12th
it's
just
not.
B
Yeah,
if
you
wait
until
january
7th,
it
will
not
make
the
january
12th
meeting,
and
I
really
I
mean
I.
If
you
would
I
mean
I
I
don't
I
don't
know
you
know
whether
we
need
to
rent
the
cage
again,
but
you
know
I.
I
really
would
like
to
see
you
guys
look
at
this
earlier
than
that.
I
mean
this
has
just
been
hanging
out
for
weight,
loss.
B
The
second
and
fourth
tuesdays.
C
If,
if
we
know
now
that
it
might
be
problematic
to
get
it
on,
the
second
tuesday
could
could
this
be
put
on
the
fourth
tuesday
agenda
for
city
council.
B
Well,
it
could,
but
you
know
again,
you
know
a
month
a
month
went
by
and
we're
you
know
frankly
this
these
discussions
feel
like
the
same
one
that
we
had
a
month
ago.
C
B
But
at
the
same
time
carol
we
went
through
several
years
where
the
board
committed
to
come
up
with
their
own
substantive
rules.
We
hired
an
attorney
for
you
guys
to
do
that
and
you
never
did
it
so
there
was,
I
mean
it
hasn't
been
just
a
year.
No.
B
Well,
but
I
mean
again,
this
has
been
just
a
while
hanging
out,
and
so
you
know
I
I
just
you
know,
kicking
it
down
for
a
whole
another
month.
Just
I
really
would
urge
you
to
look
at
it
before
january,
7th.
G
So
so
just
real
quick,
mr
henning.
Okay,
if
the
issue
is
the
issue
right
now
that
we're
looking
at
for
c
two
and
three
are
we
are
we
concerned
about
the
law
and
the
departmental
policy
I
mean
if
we
get
back
to
the
thing,
maybe
we
can
solve
it
right
now,
but
is
that
the
is
that
the
biggest
issue
that
we
are
having
right
now?
I
I
think
well.
H
I
think
what
we've
come
to
is
is
a
little
bit
of
a
an
impasse
about
where,
where
depression
ends
for
for
this
board,
I
mean
so
just
so
you
I
mean,
I
think
you
all
members
are
aware
of
the
fact
that
the
act
says
justified
and
that's
all
it
says,
and
to
to
gloss
onto
that
rule.
That
says
the
minute
that
the
supervisor
determines
that
any
kind
of
violation
occurred
and
as
long
as
that's
a
fact,
you
don't
get
to
apply
any
further
question
about
justification.
H
That
is
a
a
restriction
on
on
this
board's
authority,
as
expressed
under
the
act.
Now,
I'm
not
saying
it's
entirely
wrong
to
do
that.
I
I
have
tried
to
to
see
it
and
I
think
we
are
trying
to
see
it
from
the
city
administration
perspective
and
I
feel
like
we
have
gone
even
with
what
my
understanding,
how
this
rule
was
going
to
work,
was
going
pretty
far
distance
to
to
do
that.
G
Well,
I
guess
my
point
is
instead
of
us
spending
the
next
15
more
minutes
talking
about
when
we're
going
to
have
to
do
this
by.
Why
don't
we
discuss
what
we're
talking
about
and
try
to
resolve
the
issue
if
you're
going
to
spend,
if
you're
going
to
waste
the
time
trying
to
figure
out
when
we're
going
to
reconvene
again,
and
why
don't
we
just
talk
it
out
about
what
we're
trying
to
resolve?
I
will
say.
J
This,
if
it's
helpful
at
least
to
some
of
the
points
that
we've
discussed
here,
I
would
be
happy
with
going
to
c2
and
saying
employment.
Action
is
per
se,
justified
upon
a
showing
that
an
employee
violated,
and
I
would
take
out
any
law
or
take
out
those
words
violated,
spend
your
departmental
policy.
I
would
actually
put
city
order,
departmental
policy
rules
of
conduct,
four
rules
of
conduct,
violence
did
your
department
on
policy
or
rules
of
conduct.
J
A
A
C
Well
because,
mr
maddox,
let
me
ask
this
as
a
question
I
would
presume,
and
some
anybody
jump
in
if
I'm
wrong,
that
under
the
code
of
conduct
that
would,
for
example,
if
someone
was
convicted
of
domestic
violence,
that
was
the
kind
of
content
that
could
come.
H
Great
board
members,
I
feel
that's
and
where
I
have
always
sided
with
the
city's
approach
to
this
is,
I
do
think,
a
department
head.
It
should
be
the
the
department
heads
department
to
run
and,
if
they're
applying,
you
know
their
rules
that
they
decide.
This
means.
I
really
can't
have
this
person.
I
think
that
there's
there's
sense
in
in
finding
justification.
A
F
You
know
something
went
wrong
and
it
was
our
job
to
determine
whether
the
action
was
justified.
Now,
what
I'm
hearing
is
as
long
as
that
the
city
can
show
that
the
individual
broke.
However,
we
want
to
term
it
policy
rule
whatever
and
and
for
and
because
of
that
you
know
not
complying
with
that
policy
rule.
Regardless
of
how
significant
a
rule
it
was
then
that
in
our
we
have
to
find
that
it
was
justified,
even
if
it
was
even
if
any
reasonable
person
would
say.
You
know.
F
F
Then
we
will
tie
our
hands
to
support
the
city
in
that
case
and
if
that's,
what
we
want
to
do.
Okay,
but
that's
what
I'm
a
little
bit
uncomfortable
with
gwen.
B
Thank
you
I
and
I'm
not.
I
realize
that
I'm
inserting
myself
into
this
conversation
a
little
bit.
So
I
appreciate
your
indulgence.
I
think
what
we
have
to
remember
is
you
know
before
it
even
comes
before
you.
B
That
decision
had
to
go
up
through
the
city
manager,
so
the
assumption
that
I
mean
you're,
basically
making
the
assumption,
then
that
not
only
is
the
supervisor
being
petty
but
their
supervisor,
and
then
the
city
manager
was
also
being
petty.
So
I
I
guess
I'm
you
know.
I
mean
from
a
process
perspective
kind
of
just
asking
you
to
sort
of
think
about
this
sort
of
feels.
F
No,
I
I
get
all
that
I,
when
I
I
I
agree
with
all
that,
but
I'm
just
where
my
conscience
is
struggling
here
is,
let's
just
say:
hypothetically,
it
was
petty
and,
let's
say
everyone
in
the
in
the
chain
of
command
and
everyone
in
the
review
process
was
wrong
and
they
were
petty.
We
as
a
civil
service
board,
wouldn't
have
any
recourse.
F
We
would
have
no
recourse,
we
would
have
to
say
we,
we
affirmed
the
pettiness,
and
we
would
have
to
tell
the
public
that
we
would
have
to
tell
the
city
council
that
anyone
the
newspaper
that
so
I
it
just
that,
doesn't
feel
right
to
me
that
we
would
have
no
discretion
to
overturn
something.
That
was
clearly
clearly
unjustified,
and
I
agree
that
hopefully,
that
day
would
never
come,
but
if
it
did
come,
we
as
a
civil
service
board
would
be
powerless
to
act.
C
Rick,
what
would
you
think
that
the
rules
should
say
then.
F
My
interpretation
was
that,
as
we
review
that
decision
that
the
the
department
director
that
there
wasn't
a
you
know
a
violation
that,
and
that
resulted
into
in
some
sort
of
an
action
that
we
would
get
to
use
a
standard
of
unreasonable,
clearly
unreasonable,
erroneous
or
arbitrary.
You
know
so
I
I
mean,
I
think
the
words
are
actually
there.
It's
just
when
I
heard
john
maddox's
interpretation
that
hey
as
long
as
you
find
that
some
policy
was
violated,
then
you're
stuck
you
can't.
You
can't
even
get
to
number
four
number.
F
H
And
you
know
if
you
wanted
to
sound
like
sort
of
a
juris
nerd,
the
word
there's
a
phrase
in
perimeteria,
we
read
things
together
to
make
sense
of
them,
you
don't
don't
read
a
section
of
a
law
that
makes
another
part
of
it
meaningless,
and
so,
when
that's,
why
to
me,
that's
why
three
four
and
five
knit
together
to
say
what
we
mean
by
abusive
discretion,
and
I
think
that
already
is
taking
a
substantial,
direct
step
in
the
direction
the
city
wants
to
go
in
terms
of
defining.
E
H
I
think
what
the
city
has
tried
to
do
in
the
way
that
this
is
drafted,
and
I
should
say
the
city
attorney's
office,
because
the
council
has
not
had
a
whack
at
it,
yet
is
to
to
better
define
what
that
justification
in
c1
means
in
the
context
of
a
dismissal
that
is
based
on
a
departmental
head
department,
heads
finding
of
a
violation
of
law
or
or
departmental
policy
or
city
policy.
J
And
you're
correct
because
saying
whether
something
was
justified.
Well,
that
means
that
it
was
just
that
doesn't
do
a
whole
lot
for
clearing
up.
What
does
it
mean
for
something
to
be
justified
is
to
say
that
it's
just,
and
that
comes
from
something
that's
just
right
or
valid.
That's
the
dictionary
definition
that
court
of
appeals
used
in
looking
at
prior
civil
service
board
cases,
and
that
is
the
standard
that
they
would
continue
to
use
if
it
was
appealed
to
the
court.
J
So
even
if
the
civil
service
board
is
utilizing
this,
instead
of
rule
to
determine
whether
something
is
justified,
then
the
courts
would
use
their
own
continue
to
look
to
whether
they
think
it
was
just
right
or
valid
unless
they
were
to
amend
that
in
some
future
case.
It
would
still
be
according
to
that.
So
even
if
this
board
felt
it
felt
like
it
was
hamstrung
in
a
you
know
that
point:
zero,
zero,
zero
one
case
where
some
kind
of
petty
thing
forces
the
board
under
these
rules.
H
Board
members,
I
completely
agree
that
that
the
procedure
stays
the
same
as
long
as
the
civil
service
act
exists.
Your
decision
that
you
don't
have
jurisdiction
under
this
rule
is
still
fully
appealable
by
the
employee
de
novo
to
superior
courts.
They
start
all
over
and
that
court
is
going
to
apply.
H
The
alley
case
is
the
one
that
says.
Justified
means
justified
means
justified.
That's
still
what
this
the
standard
that
the
courts
are
going
to
follow.
E
I
just
wasn't
sure
why
we
were
changing
the
words
from
what
the
city
had
to
demonstrate
initially
to
what
our
what
we
were
going
to
consider
was
using
different
words.
I
mean
they
may
all
mean
the
same
thing,
but
this
actually.
J
Came
out
of
out
of
after
the
last
big
hearing,
we
had
members
of
the
board
saying
that
they,
what
does
it
mean
for
something
to
be
justified
and
they
felt
like
they
did
not
have
enough
a
good
sense
of
what
that
word
meant
when,
especially
when
the
live
case,
law
saying
it
means
well,
justified
means
justified,
and
so
this
is
an
attempt
to
bring
some
clarity
around
that
not
only
for
this
board,
but
for
the
city
too,
because
when
he
has
an
employer
is
trying
to
make
decisions.
J
G
I
would
agree,
I
just
weigh
in
real
quick
and
okay
you're,
trying
to
you're
trying
to
weigh
in
and
nobody's
listening
to
you,
but
just
real
quick.
I
think
it
clears
things
up
because
I
know
from
my
first
meeting-
and
it
was
july
of
19
for
that
case-
that
we
really
struggle
with
where
our
hands
are
tied
and
trying
to
figure
out
whether
this
was
justified
or
not.
I
think
this
helps
clear
it
up.
C
Were
there
any
other
areas
on
the
proposed
draft
that
people
had
questions
about?
Mr
esquivet.
A
Well,
I
want
to
be
sure
we
we
are
removing
the
language
that
john
had
talked
about
previously
about
violated
any
law
correct.
That
is
correct.
That
is,
I'm
I'm
I've
changed
that
I
should
say
any
any
law
or
not
violated
any
law
or.
J
A
I
do
have
a
question
on,
and
probably
this
may
be
an
hr
issue
that
would
help
on
probationary
employees,
so
yeah.
J
Yeah,
so
we
talked
about
probationary
employees
last
time
you
know
whether
this
you
should
have
a
different
period
for
the
police
department,
because
we
start
we
hire
folks
prior
to
them
even
entering
blet
and
whether
that
needs
to
have
parody
with
the
fire
department.
And
after
talking
with
mr
henning
and
based
on
some
language
in
the
act-
and
this
is
also
some
feedback
I
received
from
members
of
the
fop-
we
really
feel
like
our
about.
Our
only
option
is
to
create
a
one-year
probationary
period
that
applies
for
all
employees,
starting
on
the
data
higher.
J
So
that's
even
when
they're
in
blet
that
that
current
period
is
running
and
it
this
it's
clear
the
whole
way
across
the
board.
So
this
is
when
you're
hired
you're
in
a
probationary
period,
but
if
you're
rehired,
if
you've
left
a
sitting,
point
you're
hired
to
be
a
probationary
period
for
a
year
after
you're,
promoted
you're
in
a
probationary
period
for
a
year
now,
bearing
in
mind,
if
you
are
fired
in
that
promotion,
you
still
would
have
civil
service
board
rights.
You
wouldn't
probationary.
J
J
What
d
three
says,
though,
is
that
if
you
are
promoted,
then,
within
that
probationary
period
you
can
be
demoted
and
not
have
an
appeal
right
to
the
civil
service
board
that
way
like.
If
you
become
a
lieutenant,
it's
just
not
working
out,
you
could
then
be
demoted,
and
just
because
you
were
in
your
probationary
period,
you
would
not
have
a
right
appeal
to
the
civil
service
board
just
on
the
fact
that
you
were
demoted.
J
E
Madness,
I've
got
one
question
if
you've
got
somebody,
that's
been
working
for
the
city
for
10
or
15
years
and
they
get
promoted.
Does
that
start
a
new
year's
probationary
period
only.
J
If
they
are,
it's
really
sort
of
a
limited
probationary
period,
if
they
are,
let's
say
you're
a
sergeant,
you
become
a
lieutenant
and
you're
fired.
You
would
have
your
full
appeal
rights
like
a
full
member
of
the
classified
service.
You
could
appeal
that
to
the
city
manager,
you
can
appeal
that
to
civil
service
board,
the
only
thing
that
you
would
not
be
entitled
to
appeal
to
the
civil
service
board
would
be
if
you
were
subsequent
demoted,
because
it's
just
not
working
out.
E
If
you
got
promoted,
you
know,
although
I
mean
I
agree,
it
should
be
a
probationary
period
for
promotions,
because
some
people
can't
do
the
job
they're
promoted
to
I.
C
E
Yeah
it
it
it
just
when
you
sort
of
lump
them
all
together
in
two
and
then
put
another
rule
out
for
three.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
and-
and
I
have
no
problem
with
the
pro-
the
actual
promotion
being
a
part
of
the
probation,
but
it's
it's
they're
not
like
a
probationary
employee
that
is
got
hired
yesterday.
C
A
Yeah,
just
a
john
mattis,
I
think
you
did
a
great
job,
I'm
pleased
that
you
heard
the
concerns
of
pva
and
firefighters
on
that
whole
issue
of
time
and
probation
for
newly
hired,
because
it
does
vary
within
the
two
agencies,
but
I
think
you've
addressed
that
concern
and
and
d2
and
done
a
good
job
with
that.
Thank
you.
C
Were
there
any
other,
mr
maddox,
were
there
any
other
portions
of
the
the
original
draft
that
you
wanted
to
make
comments
on.
J
No,
I
think
that
that
covers
everything
that
mr
henning
and
I
discussed
and
anything
that
was
changed
since
the
last
meeting.
H
No
madam
chair
that'd
be
about
it
and
if
the
board
has
consent,
that's
your
next
step,
but
if
you
are
acting
conscious
about
the
language
there
still
is
that
provision
about
whether
or
not
a
a
involuntary
resignation
is
something
that
still
this
board
feels
like
it
has
jurisdiction
on.
So
any
we
need
direction
on
whether
or
not
to
reapply
the
language
that
I've.
Given
you
on
that
to
the
proposal.
J
I
think
our
position
is
that
the
language
as
in
the
current
draft
is
what
the
city
would
like
to
see
that
we
for
all
the
reasons
we
discussed
earlier
on.
We
believe
that
the
brightline
rule
that
this
board
is
not
going
to
consider
any
action
by
employees
who
resign
to
be
before
the
board
of
jurisdiction.
H
Imagine
if
the
board
is
ready
to
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
the
draft
rule
and
and
propound
it
to
this
city
council
for
consideration.
A
motion
to
that
effect
needs
to
tell
us
whether
or
not
you
want
that
language
about.
I
had
proposed
earlier.
Add
it
back
in
and
an
explanation
given
to
the
city
about
it.
H
So
I
guess
a
proper
motion
would
be
either
to
approve
the
rule
as
revised
today
or
to
approve
the
rule
as
as
revised
today
with
the
additional
language
concerning
involuntary
resignation.
J
But
I'm
not
sure
it's
coming
through
in
the
correct
way.
But
oh.
G
Okay,
one
minor
thing,
mr
max,
if
I
just
point
something
out
at
the
very
beginning
under
a
completely
minor,
but
if
you
could
at
the
end
of
the
first
paragraph
of
a
where
it
says,
subject
to
amendment
and
approval
by
asheville
city
council,
you
can
move
that
to
the
beginning
of
the
paragraph,
because
the
way
it's
worded
the
way
I
read
the
way
it's
worded
is
that
the
the
the
actual
asheville
civil
civil
service
act
is
subject
to
amendment
and
approval
by
asheville
city
council.
It's
just
a
minor
thing.
J
I
I
apologize
just
as
you
were
saying
that
a
five-year-old
walked
through
the
door
and.
J
G
Yeah,
it's
okay,
so
so
at
the
in
the
first
paragraph,
under
a
if
you
just
move
where
it
says,
subject
to
amendment
and
approval
by
asheville
city
council
to
the
very
beginning
of
the
paragraph,
because
the
way
that
I
read
the
way
it's
worded
is
the
the
actual
asheville
civil
service
act
is
subject
to
amendment
and
approval
by
asheville
city
council.
Something
minor,
but.
J
B
Good
john,
on
number:
three:
it
looks
like
r.
U
is.
J
C
Well,
hearing
no
further
discussion
I'll,
entertain
emotion
at
this
time.
A
I
would
move
that
we
adopt
these
new
substitute
rules,
subject
to
the
changes
that
john
has
just
made.
John
maddox
has
just
made
and
that
the
board
approved
them.
C
It's
been
seconded
by
mr
hahn,
mr
deveraux.
How
do
you
vote.
F
F
Okay,
so
I
my
inclination
is
to
vote
against
this
motion
and
I
just
wanted
to
explain
why,
for
two
reasons,
one
I
was
in
favor
of
john
henning's
language
with
respect
to
the
sort
of
forced
resignation
scenario,
the
the
language
that
he
proposed,
although
the
city
preferred
not
to
have
that,
I
thought
that
language
was
solid.
F
F
I
think
it
would
be
worthwhile
if
we
could
come
up
with
words
that
not
that
said
linked
abuse
of
discretion,
to
the
notion
that
an
employee
who
who
you
know
experienced
a
very
minor
violation
of
policy
that
that
would
not
meet
an
abuse
of
discretion
standard.
If
if
the
supervisor
were
to
terminate
that
employee
or
take
some
other
action
against
an
employee,
I'd
like
to
figure
out
those
words,
I
I
don't
so
I
don't
I'm
going
to
vote
against
these
words
because
I
think
it
it
limits
the
civil
service
board.
F
It
restricts
us
to
not
being
able
to
find
a
foreign
employee
simply
because
some
policy
was
violated
so
again,
probably
not
articulating
that
very
well.
But
I
wanted
to
explain
myself
there.
C
Okay,
then
just
say
a
I,
I
or
nay.
If
you
are
ready
to
vote,
mr
devereaux.
F
C
Mr
escovitz,
all
right,
mr
hahn,
mr
webb,
hi
and
I'll
vote.
I
so
that
motion
carries
with
one
they
vote.
C
Is
there
anything
else
regarding
the
substantive
rules
that
we
need
to
address.
J
I
wouldn't
know
that
brandon
mcgahl
from
the
pba
has
been
patiently
listening
to
us
this
entire
time,
and
it
might
be
be
good
for
the
board
to
hear
from
a
member
of
the
employee
association
regarding.
K
Hey,
can
you
all
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
The
first
I
want
to
say
is
that
I
appreciate
all
the
conversation
and
all
this
work
that
that
you
are
putting
on
this.
It's
really
a
good
thing
to
hear
the
city
and
the
board.
You
know
trying
to
do
what's
best
for
employees,
rick
paul,
of
course,
apologizes
that
he
could
not
be
here
he's
currently
in
a
rehabilitation
center,
but
he's
doing
a
lot
better.
K
So
we're
very
happy
about
that.
Don't
you
know
one
thing
I
was
here.
You
know.
Typically,
you
know
as
an
employee
association,
we
hate,
you
know
personal
language,
but
in
this
case
you
know
the
city
has
been
very
good
and
working
with
us
on
their
consideration
with
disciplinary
matrix
and
a
disciplinary
matrix.
K
What
it
is
is
that
it
gives,
for
example,
let's
talk
about
the
parking
ticket
that
week
that's
time
for
discussion
so
far.
First
of
all,
and
I'm
sure
asheville
has
these
same
policies.
Not
all
violations
of
law
are
reportable
under
policy
to
the
agency,
and
maybe
mr
mags
can
can
speak
further
on
that.
If
he,
if
he
knows
the
policy
on
that,
typically
a
parking
ticket
wouldn't
be
something
you'd
have
to
report
to
the
agency.
To
begin
with,
usually
that's
a
very
hot
dwi
trafficking.
K
K
I
don't
know
it
would
typically
be
something
a
little
more
severe
than
a
parking
ticket
to
come
forward,
but
even
if
it
did,
the
disparity
matrix
would
classify
that
somewhere
and
what
type
of
penalty
could
be
faced
for
that
a
disciplinary
matrix
takes
into
account
an
officer's
good
work
conduct,
along
with
the
violation
and
those
two
weigh
each
other
out
to
come
up
with
a
high
end
or
a
low
wind
of
punishment
within
the
matrix,
and
I
would
in
and
I'll
ask
this
to
the
attorneys
of
course.
J
What
that
would
fall
into
is
the
due
process,
part
of
it.
Okay,
and
under
these
rules,
we've
said
that
failure
to
adhere
to
the
disciplinary
matrix
would
result.
It
would
mean
that
that
employee
had
been
deprived
of
due
process.
K
So
you
know
this
was
all
we.
The
pba
of
course
agreed
to
all
this
based
on
the
disciplinary
matrix.
Of
course,
we'd
like
to
have
seen
it
in
place
by
now,
but
it's
not
the
city
spawn,
but
that's
not
in
place.
The
city
has
agreed
that
they're
they're
open
to
using
the
matrix,
the
chief
has
agreed
to
that.
Unfortunately
rick
having
his
medical
condition
caused
those
talks
to
stop.
K
For
now,
I've
been
given
permission
by
rick
to
open
those
talks
back
up
with
the
chief
and
with
a
pba
member
present
to
do
that.
So
hopefully
we
can
have
a
matrix
that
someone
that
can
be
approved
by
the
city
reasonably
soon,
but
if
the
you
know,
of
course,
the
council
said
that
they
would
like
to
see
that
too,
before
giving
their
final
approve,
that'd
be
great
and
we
hopefully
can
have
something
soon
for
the
city
to
look
at.
K
So,
that's
all
you
know.
Basically,
that's
the
biggest
part
I
want
to
say
this
matrix
takes.
A
lot
of
you
know
is
a
good
thing.
I
believe
that
really
can
work
in
well
with
this,
but
you
know
if,
for
some
reason
that
doesn't
get
passed
and
the
matrix
doesn't
come
to
be,
I
guess
my
next
question
is:
is
this
commission
allowed
to
look
at
the
rules
again?
If
that
does
not
pass?
You
know
whenever
that
would
be
appropriate.
K
J
K
So
yeah,
so
I
like
the
work
that
we've
done
with
the
city
on
this.
I'm
glad
I
really
appreciate
the
conversation
you
all
have
had
so
our
employment
association,
the
way
the
rules
are
written,
are
in
favor
of
them
and
we
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
and
the
city
letting
us
be
part
of
this.
C
C
Hearing
none.
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn
if
there's
no
other
business
or
announcements
to
come
before
the
board.
C
I
C
Mr
escovitz
hi,
mr
han
aye,
mr
webb
hi.
I
vote
the
meetings
adjourned
with
my
thanks
to
everyone
for
their
time
and
attention
to
this
matter,
and
also
I
have
a
very
happy
holiday.
Everyone
see
you
in
january.