►
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
B
Yes,
ma'am.
Okay,
has
everybody
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
proposed
agenda?
B
Yes,
yes,
okay
is:
are
there
any
additions,
changes,
questions.
B
B
Okay,
all
right,
mr
devereaux.
E
B
B
Mr
escovitz
president,
mr
hahn,
president
mr
webb
president,
and
then
I'm
present
so
everybody's
here
and
so
we'll
go
back
to
the
removed
and
properly
seconded
to
accept
the
minute
the
agenda
as
presented
all
in
favor.
Please
let
it
know
be
known
by
saying
aye.
B
Oh,
I'm
sorry!
Well,
let's
just
go
back
to
that
again,
mr
deborah.
Are
you
in
favor
of
proceeding
with
the
agenda
as
presented
hi
mr
jeff,
mr
deborah,
mr
escovitz
aye,
mr
hahn,
mr
webb.
E
B
C
A
B
Second,
it's
been
moved
in
seconded
we'll
vote
in
favor
of
dropping
the
minutes
as
they
have
been
sent
out.
Mr
devereaux.
C
B
B
Okay,
we'll
continue
with
unfinished
business
discussion
of
the
substantive
rules.
Did
everybody
receive
the
copy
of
the
rules?
It
was
a
three-page
document.
B
And
is
mr
maddox
on
the
call?
Did
you
want
to
say
anything
mr
maddox.
H
Yes,
madam
chairperson,
I
am
here
and
hello
to
everybody,
I'm
good
to
see
you
all.
I
might
apologize,
there's
an
airplane
flying
over
my
head
right
as
I
took
it
off.
So
that's
I
apologize
so
I
you
did
get
the
rules.
You
got
them
just
a
few
days
ago,
I'm
still
hot
ironing
out
last
details,
I'm
not
at
here
I'm
and
you're.
Welcome
too
it's
it's!
It's
your
board,
y'all
doing
what
you
like,
but
not
asking
y'all
to
vote
on
these
today.
H
What
I
wanted
to
do
is
get
this
draft
in
front
of
you
have
a
chance
to
answer
any
questions.
Talk
with
y'all
a
little
bit
about
a
couple
of
the
provisions
that
are
in
here
and
hopefully,
next
month.
Your
december
meeting
take
a
vote
on
these
rules.
I
that's
part
of
this.
I'm
still
working
out
some
details
with
some
of
the
unions,
the
employees
associations.
H
And
I'm
afraid
that
actually
rick
tullis,
who
is
the
president
of
the
he's,
been
very
very
ill
for
at
least
a
week
now
and
everybody
keep
him
in
your
thoughts
and
prayers
he's,
I
think
been
in
the
hospital
and
I've
been
unable
to
speak
with
him
for
about
a
week
and
a
half,
so
that's
certainly
thrown
a
little
bit
of
around
touch
base
with
us.
I've
worked
with
the
pba
primarily
over
the
last
few
months,
but
we've
touched
base
with
the
fop.
H
We've
made
some
changes
to
the
rules
in
line
with
the
recommendations,
we're
at
odds
over
provisions
but
we're
giving,
but
I
think,
there's
a
compromise
that
can
be
struck
and
I
think
in
the
end
it
might
be
one
of
those
times.
We
say
here
the
fop
or
these
other
groups
are
here
board.
What
do
you
rule
and
then
maybe
we
ultimately
leave
it
to
the
city
council
there's
at
least
one
of
those
provisions.
I've
also
spoken
with
the
firefighters
association.
H
I
only
had
a
chance
to
sit
down
mullins
last
week,
though,
and
he
has
asked
so
that
he
would
need
some
more
time
to
look
over
the
rule,
and
I
think
we
have
a
whole
another
month.
There's
no
reason
not
to
keep
talking,
try
to
figure
out
those
things
that
there
was
just
his
quick
look
at.
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
him.
It
seemed
like
we
had
a
few
things
we
needed
to
talk
over,
but
for
the
most
part
it
seemed.
It
was
very
productive,
positive
meeting,
I'm
hopeful
there.
H
Okay,
so
I
I
assume,
look
over
the
rule,
I'm
some
things
aren't
changed
since
the
last
time
we
spoke
about
this
there's
really
two
three
big
changes,
the
biggest
change
that
has
come
about
as
part
of
this
you'll.
Remember
that
we
talked
about
what
is
the
definition
of
justified?
That's
one
of
the
main
goals
for
this
is.
H
Why
does
it
mean
that
an
employment
decision
by
the
city
is
justified?
Well,
this
rule
seeks
to
it
kind
of
breaks
justified
into
two
parts.
Justified
means
that
the
employee
received
due
process,
which
is
another
definition
under
this
rule,
and
that
the
ethic
policy
violation
whether
a
policy
viola
occurred,
is
then
judged
by
according
to
the
discretion
standard.
The
first
big
change
has
to
do
with
that
due
process
bit
so
number
four,
the
number
four
definition
due
process.
H
Take
whatever
the
complaint
of
employment.
Action
is
what
we've
added
in
there,
the
department
by
departmental
policy
utilizes
a
discipline
tricks,
which
is
a
policy
whereby,
if
the
employee
committed
this
policy
violation,
then
the
punishment
is
this.
They
committed
this
policy
violation.
The
punishment
is
that
up
to
any
punishable
by
termination,
some
things
it's
the
very
it
gives
a
lot
of
it-
takes
away
a
lot
of
the
uncertainty
out
of
the
disciplinary
process.
H
But
under
this
rule,
if
department
by
policy
utilize
the
disciplinary
matrix,
then
their
due
process
will
include
discipline
in
line
with
that
matrix.
That's
sort
of
the
first
change
that's
come
about
since
the
last
time
we
talked
about
this
and
that's
based
on
you
know:
feedback
from
the
different
employment
groups.
The
other
big
change
is,
we
talked
the
board
said
we
talked
about
what
abusive
discretion
means
in
this
context
and
well
suggested
that
there
needs
to
be
that
term,
better
defined
what
useful
discretion
mean.
So
I
went
to
my
shelf.
H
Pull
up
my
blocks,
my
dictionary,
and
so
now.
This
includes
a
abuse
of
discretion.
Show
me
a
decision
that
is
grossly
unsound,
patently
unreasonable
or
wholly
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence.
That
means
that
if
a
if
a
police
chief
makes
a
decision
to
terminate
somebody
or
suspend
somebody
or
demote,
somebody
and
the
decision
is
grossly
uns,
only
unreasonable
or
wholly
unsupported
by
by
substantial
evidence,
and
that
would
not
be
justified.
H
B
John,
can
I
ask
a
quick
question
not
to
interrupt
absolutely-
and
this
is
the
lawyer
in
me
asking
questions
I
understand
and
I
and
I
figured
that
this
definition
was
out
of
black's
law
dictionary,
so
the
the
decision
of
when
a
matter
would
come
in
front
of
the
board.
It
would
be
our
determination
of
whether
it
was
grossly
unsound
or
not.
H
H
So
if
the,
if
the
board
thinks
that
the
decision,
what
that
a
policy
violation
occurred,
was
get
the
language
exactly
right,
was
grossly
unsound
or
wholly
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence,
then
the
board
would
say
that
that
was
not
justified.
That
decision
was
not
justified.
Okay.
F
Yeah
john
rick
deveraux
got
a
question
on
it,
so
in
paragraph
two,
when
it's
about
an
employment
action
is
per
se
justified
upon
a
showing
that
an
employee
violated
any
law
etc.
F
Is
there
is
the
discretion
standard
and
paragraph
four
applied
to
that
paragraph
as
well
or
is
it
are
those
independent?
In
other
words,
if
if,
if
a
supervisor
says
you
broke
such
and
such
city
or
departmental
policy,
I'm
and
I'm
terminate
and
I'm
discharging
you
because
of
that
does,
does
it
also
need
that
that
there
has
has
to
be
the
the
paragraph
for
the
sort
of
it
also
has
to
not
be
an
abuse
of
discretion?.
A
H
They're
not
exactly
independent,
it
all
works
together,
so
think
about.
Okay,
I
want
to
I
want
to
say
that
something
is
justified
right.
So,
if
I
want,
if
the
department
director
trying
to
justify
say
that
a
decision
is
just,
I
have
to
first
make
sure
the
employees
do
prompt
all
right
that
they
they
had
notice
of
the
allegations
that
they've
had
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
before
the
decision
is
made
and
if
my
department
utilizes
a
department,
a
disciplinary
that
the
discipline
that
I'm
handing
down
with
that
disciplinary
matrix.
H
So
if,
for
instance,
it's
a
police
officer
who
engaged
in
excessive
force
well
termination
might
be
justified
if
it's
a
police
officer
who
started
late
one
day
and
then
was
fire
for
that,
would
not
disciplinary
process
in
a
matrix
and
therefore
he
did
not
receive
due
process.
Does
that
make
sense?
H
H
That
is
where
the
decision
that
the
department
that
the
officer
or
the
employee
violated
a
rule
of
conduct
has
to
be
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
It
has
to
be
not
grossly
unsound
or
patently
unreasonable.
F
So
so,
if
I
can
make
sure
I
understand
by
an
example,
let's
say
it's
a
department
that
does
not
have
a
matrix.
Okay
and
let's
say
the
person
was
fired
because
they
got
a
speeding
ticket
that
they
went
10
miles
over
the
limit
somewhere.
Their
boss
said
you
know,
you
broke
the
law,
I'm
gonna
fire
you,
but
we
all
say:
that's
prett,
you
know.
F
Maybe
it's
a
20-year
employee,
that's
the
only
thing
it
seems
kind
of
arbitrary
in
that
case,
that
would
be
an
abuse
of
discretion
correct,
since
it
would
be
patently
unreasonable
to
fire
a
20-year
city
employee
simply
because
it
got
a
speeding
ticket
for
going
10
miles
over
the
limit
is
that
is
that
fair.
H
H
The
the
goal
of
this
is
to
re,
put
some
objectivity
to
this,
and
also
to
put
some
of
the
discretion
in
the
hands
of
these
department
directors
who
are
running
their
departments
and
who
we
do
at
a
point
need
more
about
their
respective
departments
than
a
lot
of
us
do
know
more
about
policing,
no
more
about
sanitation
and
know
about
the
inner
workings
of
their
department.
So
when
it
comes
to
decisions
about
whether
a
certain
level
of
punishment
is
fair,
we
are
trying
to
place
more.
H
B
John,
I
had
a
couple
of
others
under
b
one
classified
service.
Would
it
be
preferable
and
again
at
the
risk
of
sounding
nitpicky
to
say
civil
service
act
instead
of
civil
service
law.
H
You
know
I
can
even
go
go
more
precise
than
that
cara.
I
could
do
the
civil
service
act
of
1959
as
I've
got
in
somewhere,
so
I
can
make
that
more
precise.
That's
a
good
idea.
D
I
I
don't
know
that
you
need
to
go
that
far
with
it.
John,
I
think
the
point
is
you:
have
you
have
referenced
it
as
the
actual
civil
service
act
in
the
first
paragraph?
In
a
is
that,
then
you
get
down
to
b2
and
you
say
the
civil
service
law.
I
think
you've
already
done
it.
You
could
just
say
act.
There.
H
Yeah
sure,
okay
yeah,
I'm!
I
love
please
point
out
stuff
like
that,
because
sometimes
I've
read
it
so
my
eyes
crossed.
I.
B
Understand
and
one
other
under
what
is
it
b,
no
yeah,
b,
three
six
on
this
at
the
end
of
the
second
line,
it
says,
of
a
city,
police
of
city
policy
or
poor
work
performance.
I
might
just
suggest
unsatisfactory
as
a
better
word,
but
I
mean.
B
Yeah-
and
I
did
have
another
question-
and
this
is
just
a
question
in
that
same
paragraph-
involuntary
or
temporary
unpaid
leave
of
more
than
10
consecutive
shifts.
B
How
did
you
get
it
at
10
and
the
reason
I'm
I'm
asking
is
because,
depending
on
how
they
work
because,
like
I
think
some
firefighters
work
like
two
days
on
two
days
off
so
to
get
to
ten
consecutive
shifts,
you
might
be
two
three
weeks,
which
is
a
pretty
long
period
of
time.
Is
there
any
reason?
How
did
the
number
10
come
up?
I
mean?
Is
it
just
a
round
number
or
is
there
some
specific
reason
for
that.
H
The
reason
for
that
is,
it
comes
from
the
civil
service
board's
old
rules
that
they
had
back
in
the
day.
That's
long
been
part
of
the
city's
policies
and
it
was
an
old
civil
service
board
rule
okay.
Prior
those
thing
deal
back
in
the
day.
E
D
H
Yeah
well
yeah,
I
have
to
say
firefighter
pay
in
the
way
that
they
are
compensated
is
sometimes
so
very
it's
complicated
and
I
have
to
have.
Usually
I
call
scott,
but
tell
me
please
explain
this
to
me.
I
just
I
just
don't
understand
so
it
could
be
some
parity
between
a
firefighter
shift
versus
another
point,
but
I
I
I
don't
know
that.
Well
enough,
that's
something
I
consider
already.
A
A
Yes,
I
had
a
couple
questions,
but
before
I
want
to
talk
about
one
procedural
thing
for
the
december
meeting
john
you
mentioned
that
there
are
some
differences
in
the
associations
or
unions
that
still
need
to
be
ironed
out.
If
they're
not,
we
had
talked
about
having
members
of
those
organizations
present
at
the
next
meeting.
Perhaps
so
we
could
hear
their
thoughts
too.
If
there
are
differences
between
the
document
and
and
what
their
thinking
is.
A
So
can
we
and
and
sergeant
tulis
may
need
to
have
a
representative
of
pba
if
he's
still
ill,
but
I
would
like
to
have
that
in
place
for
the
december
meeting,
but
I
want
to
talk
about
john
you
mentioned.
10
was
from
the
old
civil
service
act.
Are
you
referencing
the
2009
act
or
the
original?
When
you
said.
H
10.,
it's
not
actually
not
from
the
act.
It's
from
the
old
civil
service
board's
rules,
rules,
okay,
previously
promulgated
rules
that
that
have
been,
I
mean,
there's
been
very
kind.
You
know
the
there's
been
substantive
rules
in
the
past
that
the
civil
service
board
had
they
were
all
repealed,
though
okay
13,
I
think-
and
since
this
is
just
really
going
back
to
that,
I
I
don't
think
the
city
has
a
real,
strong
opinion
about
this.
I
don't
think
I
think
we
do
want
to
give
department
directors
an
ability
to
issue
systems
for
minor.
H
Well,
I
want
to
say,
but
for
that
falls
short
of
having
to
have
a
full-blown
hearing
about
it,
yeah.
I
think
that
everybody
agrees.
That's
not
a
great
use
of
of
resources
possible
board
together
when
somebody
receives
a
one-day
suspension
for
some
case
understood.
D
D
D
A
Okay
under
grievance
hearing
standards,
point
three
or
I'm
sorry,
two:
when
you
talk
about
employee
violated
any
law,
could
we
be
more
specific
than
say
a
law
related
to
their
employment,
because,
for
example,
if
someone
who's
not
responsible
for
being
in
a
vehicle,
a
non-police
officer
could
be
something
not
from
a
sanitation
but
someone
who
doesn't
require
driving
as
part
of
their
job
and
they
get
a
speeding
ticket.
One
could
argue
that,
well,
they
violated
the
law
and
they
could
be.
A
There
could
be
some
punishment
for
that
violation.
So
could
we
just
say
related
to
their
employment
or
some
language
similar
to
that.
H
H
H
You
want
to
be
able
to
keep
out
some
minor
traffic
and
things
like
that
right,
but
I
don't
want
I
because
I
I've
been
handpicked
about
these
kinds
of
rules
before
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
creating
giant
exceptions
like
that
that
they're,
potentially
fine,
I'm.
A
Just
concerned
about
a
minor
violation
outside
of
work
performance
that
could
be
used
as
some
reason
to
file
or
make
charges
against
somebody
related
to
their
employment,
but
think
about
that
as
we
go
forward.
I
have
a
question
on
probationary
employees
and
my
understanding
is
that
candidates
who
are
well,
I
should
say,
cadets,
who
are
going
through
the
police
academy
and
I'm
not
sure
how
they're
referred
to,
but
individuals
going
through
the
fire
academy.
A
So
if
you
count
that
as
employment,
for
example,
a
police
officer
will
go
beyond
the
six
months
of
training,
they
have
another
three
months
of
field
training,
and
so
it
could
go
well
beyond.
The
365
days
could
have
done.
H
A
H
Very
glad
you're
bringing
up
this
was
actually
the
next
place.
I
was
going
to
go
to
the
other
thing
that
has
changed
since
the
last
time
we
talked
about,
and
this
is
where
I
have
some
disagreement
with-
not
not
not
vociferous
but
we're
still
trying
to
work
out
this
section
with
employment
unions
and
you're
exactly
correct.
H
The
the
way
treats
cadets
and
the
fire
academy
and
the
police
department,
they
start
getting
paid
their
city
employees
from
the
first
day
that
creates
that
contributes
to
a
problem,
though,
and
that
if
we
have
a
probationary
period,
that's
only
six
months.
Well
about
the
time
they're
getting
out
of
the
police
academy
and
before
they've
served
a
single
day
as
a
patrol
officer.
They
all
of
a
sudden
have
civil
service
board
rights.
H
We
don't
have
any
time
to
evaluate
them
prior
to
them,
enjoying
full
rights
of
appeal
and
all
the
expenses
that
go
along
with
that.
It's
also
true
that
they're
in
field
training
for
a
good
bit
of
time
after
they're
out
of
blet.
H
So
the
idea
with
this-
and
this
is
why
the
way
the
city's
currently
proposing
this
is
that
they
they
began
employees.
However,
the
probationary
period
expires
a
year
after
their
graduation
from
the
fire
academy
or
blet,
so
that
will
get
them
through
their
field
training
and
give
some
time
for
the
city
to
evaluate
them
when
they're
on
their
own,
serving
as
employees
and
now
I'll
say
that
this
is
the
fop
has
not
wanted
to
do.
H
Make
a
change
like
this,
the
pba
has
been
fairly,
has
been
in
favor
of
this
and
has
been
okay.
With
this
the
when
I
spoke
with
mr
mullins
last
week,
he
indicated
that
he
felt
like
the
rule.
It
might
be
slightly
different
for
firefighters
because
they
don't
have
a
intensive
field.
Training
like
police
do
so,
but
I
know
that
the
fire
police
unions
do
feel
like
there
should
be
parody
with
the
firefighter
association,
so
they
don't
want
rules
for
firefighters
rules
for
for
police
to
be
that
are
significantly
different
from
each
other.
H
I
think
importantly,
this
is
going
to
be
a
place
of
compromise
city's
saying
how
about
a
year
after
field
training
or
after
graduation
academy
and
the
led
they're
thinking
a
shorter
amount
of
time
and
where
we
land
on
that
might
ultimately
be
like
here's,
where
we
are
our
city
city
council.
What
do
you
think.
D
D
Do
that
job
and
get
one
solid
year
from
that
point,
so
I
can
see
that
I
don't
know
quite
how
you
get
around.
What's
in
the
civil
service
law
about
it,
it
says,
accept.
No,
I
think
it
means
no.
It
says
not
probationary
period
or
any
extension
thereof
may
exceed
one
year
in
the
aggregate
you
I'm
afraid
you'd
be
set
up
for
somebody
to
argue
who
falls
into
that
time
period.
D
H
Yeah
and
it's
something
I've
anticipated
in
that
we
have
to
work
out
through
the
hr
process
where
they
do
not
actually
become
full
city
employees
until
probationary
employees
until
they
have
graduated
from
the
academy.
There
might
be
a
way
to
work
it
with
their
and
there
might
be
a
contractual
way
to
work.
This
john
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing
hearing
your
thoughts
on
it
because
I
do
think
there
is
a
way
to
do
it,
but
we
will
have
to
address
that
challenge
in
the
act.
B
Is
there
a
way
I'll
ask
both
attorney
john's?
B
Is
there
a
way
to
put
some
language
to
that
effect
in
into
this,
to
you
know,
to
say
a
definition
of
an
employee
of
the
actual
fire
and
police
departments
is
or
the
date
starts
from
the
date
you're
fully,
I
don't
know
cleared
to
do
the
job
or
or
free
or
does
not
can't
your
training
time
does
not
count
towards
your
probation
period
or
something
I'm
just
mangled
that
terribly,
but
is
there
a
way
to
put
something
like
that
in
this
role.
H
There
there
may
be
a
way
to
to
skin
this
cat.
I'm
I'm
a
little
want
to
have
folks
who
are
kind
of
city
employees,
but
kind
of
not
it's
not
fair
to
them.
I
don't
I
I
feel
like
it
might
present
some
other
employment
law
challenges
that
are
separate.
Apart
from
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
with
the
civil
service
act,
but
yeah.
D
And
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
john,
I
feel
like
that,
could
accomplish
the
the
purpose
of
the
civil
service
act.
I'm
I
was
if
I
were
the
city's
attorney
and
john.
You
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I'd
be
a
little
worried
about
now.
I'm
maybe
creating
a
quasi-contractual
kind
of
situation
with
each
of
those
individuals,
and
you
end
up
having
to
fight
that
out
and
then
it
that
is
potentially
even
worse,
because
at
least
when
it's
all
channeled
through
the
civil
service
act.
D
You
know
it's
coming
up
through
the
through
this
board
and
then
on
the
court
from
there,
but
there
this
be
kind
of
a
wild
card
potentially,
but
so
it's
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
sticky
wicket.
H
It
is
and
that
that's
why
I
acknowledge
there's
still
some
things
to
be
worked
out:
I'm
hoping
to
have
that
ironed
out
before
the
for
the
but
you're
exactly
correct,
and
I
do
think
there
might
be
a
contractual
way
to
to
skin
this
horse.
But
we'll
see
okay,.
B
I
did
have
one
other
suggestion
on
on
the
third
page:
it's
under
the
grievance
and
standards
hearings
that
start
on
page
two
number.
Five,
the
burden
of
proving
the
board
has
jurisdiction
over
an
appeal.
Would,
instead
of
an
appeal,
could
I
suggest
the
complaint
of
action.
B
D
I
actually
got
some
proposed
language
that
I'd
like
to
share
with
john
to
make
a
definition
of
appeal.
I
don't
think
this
is
a
huge
deal,
but
I
do
think
we
all
use
the
word
appeal
sort
of
loosely
about
what
what
comes
before
this
board.
I
think
adding
a
definition
here
that
just
says
we
mean
the
complaint
of
act
that
the
or
the
complaint
of
employment
action
that
the
act
discusses
will
will
take
care
of
that.
F
Yeah
I've
got
one
more
for
paragraph
four
under
grievance
hearing
standards
on
on
the
john
on
the
abuse
of
discretion,
they'll
mean
a
decision
that
is
grossly
unsound,
patently
unreasonable
or
wholly
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence.
F
I,
as
I
read
that
we
as
a
board
could
be
faced
with
trying
to
determine
if
a
supervisor
exceeded
their
description
and
by
re
by
reading
that,
if
we
determine
that
a
supervised
action
was
merely
unsound,
merely
and
merely
unreasonable
and
merely
unsupported
by
the
substantial
evidence,
we
would
have
to
rule
that
the
supervisor
acted
within
their
discretion
because
it
wasn't
grossly
uncounted,
wasn't
patently
unreasonable
and
wasn't
wholly
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence.
That
seems
like
a
a
definition
of
abuse
of
discretion.
F
It
just
seems
like
a
standard
that
almost
takes
away
any
sort
of
judgment
by
the
civil
service
board
as
to
whether
a
decision
is
within
bounds
or
not.
Is
there
any
way
we
could
remove
those
grossly
patently
and
holding,
because
they
just
seem
to
be
almost
in
a
way
unreasonable,
adjectives
to
put
in
there?
You
know
it
kind
of
it
kind
of
reduces
us
to
just
judging
whether
someone's
operating
as
a
human
being
or
not.
You
know.
H
Well,
I
won't
say
that
the
adjectively,
patently
these
are-
these-
do
appear
in
law,
pretty
regular
and
they're
applied
by
judges
and
in
the
administrative
law
realm.
These
are.
H
These
are
certainly
very
well
known
terms,
and
the
idea,
let
me
say,
is
the
person
it
has
to
do
with
how
the
person
is
using
their
discretion
and
acknowledging
that
they
have
a
good
bit
of
discretion,
and
it's
only
when
they
abuse
that
discretion
and
if
you
use
enough
another
one
of
those
kinds
of
adjectives
that
you
know
is
very
strong
and
I
think
support
the
idea
that
as
much
as
they
might
have
made
a
decision
that
I
might
not
have
made
it's
that
they
have
this
power,
are
they
abusing
that?
H
Are
they
abusing
that
and
that's
grossly
patently?
I
would
think
those
adjectives
actually
add
a
lot
to
this
and
make
it
clear
what
we
are
seeking.
What
the
standard
is.
H
Can
get
there
with
with
only
because
I
do
think
if
something
is
only.
H
I
do
think
that
something
is
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence
in
large
part,
I
I
could
say
no,
but
I
do
think
that
patently
unreasonable,
because
it's
gotta
be
just
clearly
unreasonable,
not
just
well,
maybe
but
clearly
or
gross
negligence
is
a
whole
other
there's
a
whole
other
thing.
There's
negligence,
which
people
are
routinely
immune
from
police
officers,
routinely
immune
from
negligence.
H
It's
then
you
get
to
gross
negligence.
No,
that
that's
that's
a
different
different
matter,
so
I
would,
I
could
maybe
see
getting
there
with
the
idea
of
holy
with
regard
to
substantial
evidence,
but
not
with
grossly
and
patently.
F
I-
and
I
hear
you
because
you
want
you-
want
to
favor
disgra,
maximize
the
discretion
of
the
supervisor.
I
get
that
even
to
allow
supervisors
to
be
unact
unreasonably,
which
is
a
board.
I
feel
a
little
uncomfortable
with
that.
We
would
have
our
hands
tied.
That
somebody
would
be
a
reasonable
person,
would
go,
that's
an
unreasonable
decision
or
that's
an
unsound
decision,
yet
we
would
have
to
say
well,
it's
not
grossly
unsigned.
F
I
mean
I
I
get
where
you're
coming
from
you're
representing
the
city,
but
trying
to
balance
this
be
fair
to
an
employee
that
maybe
is
facing
an
action.
I
don't
know
that
that
that
one
just
seems
a
little
bit.
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
you're
comfortable
with
that.
B
I
think
john
didn't
you
say
that
that
is
the
the
definition
that
you
pulled
out
of
the
black's
law
dictionary.
H
A
Carol
yeah
alan
I'm
just
following
up
on
rick's
comment:
can
we
talk
about
arbitrary
versus
grossly
unsound
or
add
word
arbitrary
to
this
definition
of
abuse
of
discretion?
Rick?
Would
that
get
to
or
your
thoughts
are?
I.
F
Guess
I
don't.
I
don't
want
to
overstate
my
objective.
F
G
E
F
If
the
rest
of
the
board
is
sort
of
comfortable
that
that
maybe
what
we're
really
talking
about
here
in
terms
of
abuse
of
discretion,
really
means
when
someone
goes
outside
the
bounds,
you
know
of
sort
of
what
we
would
all
consider
legitimate.
You
know
kind
of
action,
then
you
know,
then
I'm
fine
with
it.
It
might
be
just
me
not
understanding
the
sort
of
the
legal
kind
of
standard.
D
And
I
will
share
that.
I
have
given
a
good
bit
of
thought
to
to
the
abuse
of
discretion
standard.
I've
got
some
thoughts
I
want
to
share
with
with
the
board
about
it
after
you've
had
some
more
time
to
digest
it,
but
certainly
in
time
for
us
to
have
a
hopefully
as
agreed
upon
set
of
standards
here
as
we
we
can
have.
D
I
I
understand
your
concern
rick
and
I
have
given
that
some
thought
too.
I
can
tell
you,
based
on
on
the
case
law,
that
we,
you
know
the
civil
service
act.
Has
these
appeals.
They
move
on,
as
we've
all
talked
about
many
times
their
de
novo
appealed
to
to
superior
court,
and
then
you
know,
meaning
that
the
courts
are
over
from
scratch
and
they
reapply
this
act
according
to
how
the
found
the
finder
of
fact,
the
judge
or
jury
finds,
finds
it
to
be,
and.
D
Which
I
think
about
the
alley
case
is
one
in
which
the
trial
court
said
and
the
word
they
used
was
this
wasn't
severe
enough
of
a
policy
violation
to
merit
dismissal
when
we
that
goes.
We
don't
really
know
in
that
case,
what
there's
nothing
more
in
the
order
that
was
was
appealed.
D
That
says
well,
why
was
too
severe
or
not
severe
enough,
or
you
know
what
the
court
have
in
mind
exactly
that
goes
up
to
the
court
of
appeals
and
they
say
really
we're
not
over
we've,
not
denovo
appeal
to
the
court
of
appeals.
We
don't
we
don't
decide
whether
the
trial
court
had
that
right
or
not.
I
say
all
that
to
say:
I
do
think
that
abusive
discretion
before
this
board
is
puts
a
good
bit
more
discretion
in
the
hands
of
the
supervisor
than
the
court
applied
in
several
cases.
D
Like
we
just
said,
this
is
not
sufficiently
severe,
but,
having
said-
and
I
think
that
the
courts
will
continue
to
apply
what
you
know
the
precedent-
that's
before
the
court,
it's
not
it's
not
going
to
be
what
this
poll
says
that
decides
how
it
gets.
You
know
decided
in
a
later
appeal
to
the
spirit
court,
I'm
not
uncomfortable
with
abusive
discretion
in
the
sense
of
I
do
think
some
discretion.
D
D
I
think
that
that's
in
the
spirit
of
the
act
to
say
justification
of
the
act,
it's
not
redo
the
act
yourself.
You
know
that
in
that
sense,
I
think,
and
I've
got
some
suggestions.
I
also
want
to
share
with
john
about
maybe
how
to
how
to
get
there
in
a
way
that
will
also
make
the
put
some
more
bounds
around.
What's
patently
unreasonable,
what's
only
unsupported,
what's
grossly
unsound
that
the
board,
I
think,
will
be
more
comfortable
with.
A
One
more
carol
under
discharge,
john,
you
mentioned
constructive
termination
in
the
last
sentence.
There
are
we
talking
about
when
a
position
is
eliminated,
the
employee
resigns
in
or
forced
to
resign
or
intolerable
conditions
that
employee
has
no
option
other
than
to
leave,
define
that.
H
Sure
constructive
termination-
this
is
where
the
employee
says
that
I
I
had
to
leave,
because
the
working
conditions
were
just
so
so
bad
that
I
just
couldn't
stay
here
anymore,
and
I
I
don't
think
that
this
board
is
set
up
to
hear
that,
because
there's
there's
not
a
there's
a
there
you're
talking
about
a
very
nebulous
sort
of
employment
decision,
rather
than
when
you
discharge
somebody,
and
you
give
somebody
a
due
process.
H
I
think
this
this
board
is
well
set
up
to
make
those
kinds
of
determinations
when
it
is
a
decision
of
the
city
to
to
terminate
somebody,
but
all
of
a
sudden,
you
start
getting
into
constructive
termination
you're
dealing
with
really
kind
of
more
nebulous
harassment
and
grievance
kinds
of
things
that
are
better
handled
through
other
rights
that
an
employee
might
have,
rather
than
through
through
this
board's
process.
So
this
is
to
bring
real
clarity
to
what
it
means
when
somebody
is
terminated.
H
D
And
board
members,
I
don't
have
any
disagreement
with.
D
Employees,
sort
of
alleging
hinting
at
some
sort
of
discriminatory
action
being
the
basis
of
motivation,
and
I
think
you
all
wisely
said
that
doesn't
come
before
this
board.
We
are
not
the
finder
of
fact
about
whether
some
discrimination
is
taking
place
and
none
of
that
appears
in
the
act.
D
The
only
place
that
I
differ
with
it
and
again
have
some
suggested
language
is
years
ago
before
a
couple
of
people
were
members
of
the
board.
The
board
had
a
an
employee
who
alleged
an
involuntary
resignation,
and
I
do
think
that
there
are
circumstances
in
which,
and-
and
I
think
this
was
somewhat
vetted
by
it-
having
gone
to
an
appealed
spirit
court,
where
the
superior
court,
by
at
least
by
implication,
said
this
matter
is
still
before
the
civil
service
board.
D
It
had
found
jurisdiction
where
there
was
an
allegation
that
I
was
told
I
had
to
resign
or
be
fired.
The
board
found
that's
the
same
thing
as
the
dismissal.
Now
that
doesn't
mean
that
that's
automatically
justified.
It
just
means
that
the
city
then
has
its
burden
to
prove
before
you
that
it
is
justified.
D
I
think
that
kind
of
involuntary
dismissal
as
long
as
voluntary
resignation
as
long
as
we're
clear-
that's,
not
the
kind
of
constructive
dismissal
we're
talking
about
it,
I
think,
is
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
board
and
the
other
ones
that
john
just
mentioned
clearly
are
not
and
should
be
taken
out.
H
Well,
actually,
john,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
I'm
going
to
disagree
with
you.
I
I
do
think
that
type
of
I
do
think
that
type
of
action
should
know
something
that
falls
under
civil
service
board
jurisdiction
and
I'll.
Give
you
a
good
reason
why.
I
think
that
is
the
case
when
an
employee
makes
the
decision
to
resign
right
be
terminated.
H
This
is
something
that
comes
up
a
good
debt
and
there
is
a
there
something
calculus
that
that
employee
has
to
do.
If
you
resign,
then
your
personnel
records
remain
sealed.
Just
to
say
that
you
resigned,
you
don't
say
that
you
don't
go
anywhere
and
say
that
you
were
you,
don't
you
can
go
someplace
and
say
that
I
resigned
my
employment.
I
was
not
fired
or
not
long.
H
The
determination
letter
that
the
city
would
that
wouldn't
become
a
public
record.
If
you
were
terminated,
is
not
a
public
record
and
you
do
not
enjoy
that
following
you,
so
they
by
resigning.
They
gain
something
from
that
right,
but
if
they,
if
they
are
terminated,
they
have
their
civil
service
board
rights.
So
it
is
a
decision
for
the
employee
to
make
and
by
resigning
and
then
bringing
an
appeal
before
the
civil
service
board.
H
It's
having
your
cake
and
you're
eating
it
and
trying
to
eat
it
too,
and
so
I
do
think
that
there
are
good
reasons
why
a
constructive
I
was
saying
you're
having
to
make
these
kinds
of
evaluations
that
I'm
not
sure
a
board
will
set
up
to
make
regarding
whether
or
not
it
was
a
constructive
termination
or
a
termination.
When
it's
determination,
it
shouldn't
be
something
we
have
to
argue
about.
H
E
I
I'm
I'm
just
going
in
real,
quick,
I'm
having
a
hard
time
hearing
john
maddox,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
what
you're
saying
they're
saying
that
if
an
employee
resigns,
then
this
is
saying
the
discharge
is
saying
that
they
don't
have.
They
can't
appeal
anything
to
the
civil
service
board.
That's
correct!
Okay,.
D
And
john
similarly,
some
of
you
were
breaking
up
through
some
of
that.
I
think
we,
this
merits
a
longer
discussion
between
us,
but
I
I
don't
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
something
not
being
a
public
record
is
to
the
reasons
for
that.
The
city
had
already
that
we're
going
to
justify
a
dismissal
if
the
person
didn't
resign.
D
I
don't
know
why
that
this
is
so
horribly
disadvantage
of
the
city.
I
think
that
there
could
be
circumstances
in
which
maybe
it's
spelled
out
enough
to
an
employee,
that
you
know
what
you'd
bring
now
I
want
to
give
it
some
more
thought,
but
I
just
I
just
don't.
I
cannot
see
a
rule
that
absolutely
takes
off
of
the
civil
service
board's
plate
and.
H
I'm
glad
to
talk
about
it
with
you
more
john.
I
I
do
feel
pretty
strongly,
though,
that
the
purpose
of
these
rules
is
to
create
some
real
certainty
around
these
specific
topics
and
there's
a
reason
why
this
is
it
because
of
that
case,
so
that
we
have
some
real,
some
very
real
guard
rails
around
these
things
for
our
decision
making-
and
that
is
I
I
it's
not
so
much-
that
an
employee
employee.
H
It
benefits
them
in
some
ways
the
civil
service
board
rights,
but
they
they
gain
these
other
things
right
that
you
agree
with
that.
But
if
the
employee
decides
that
they
want
to
resign,
but
then
the
city
also
has
to
fight
with
the
civil
service
board
appeal
more
than
we
are
just.
H
It
it
takes
away
some
of
the
negotiating
room
that
the
city
has
I'm
open
to
discussions
on
it,
but
I
I
do
feel
pretty
strong
and
it
might
be
a
place
if
we,
if
we
disagree
on
it,
we
just
leave
it
hustle.
Ultimately,.
C
I
have
no
problem
with
unsound,
unreasonable
and
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence,
but
it
just
seems
that
you're
arbitrarily
making
it
more
difficult
for
the
board
to
have
any
you
know
input
into
what
actually
happened.
I
mean
there
again
it
just.
G
C
It
seems
to
be
purely
to
make
it
easier.
I
mean
you're
going
to
have
to
show
a
whole
lot
higher.
You
know
something
above
unreasonable
when
you
call
it
patently
unreasonable,
in
the
same
way,
with
wholly
unsound
and
wholly
unsupported
by
the
evidence.
C
There
again,
I
have
no
problem
with
the
three
concepts,
just
the
fact
that
it
seems
like
we're
arbitrarily
making
it
more
difficult
to
even
hear
something.
That's
based
on
that
unsound,
unreasonable
or
unsupported
by
the
evidence.
H
I
I
agree
with
you
that
it
does
create
a
higher
higher
standard
with
regard
to
the
decision.
That
is
the
idea.
That's
why
it's
it's
abusive
discretion,
it's
not
just
that
and
within
their
discretions,
that
they
abuse
that
authority
that
is
given
to
the
decision
maker.
You
could
you
could
probably
you
could
play,
play,
replace
and
or
cut
and
paste
with
the
adjectives
if
it
helps
you.
I
mean
clearly
unsound,
clearly
unreasonable,
clearly
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence.
The
is
that
better,
worse
or
or
is
it.
C
C
Well,
but
there
were
several
cases
that
it
was
pretty
much
ruled
on
a
non-issue
that
unreasonable
and
apparently
unreasonable
had
to
be
exactly
the
same
thing.
But
in
effect
the
what
the
canadian
court
ruled
was
that
it
did
place
a
higher
standard
which
made
it
more
difficult
to
contest.
What
was
unreasonable.
C
Yeah
I
mean
there
again,
I
I
have
no
problem
with
stuff
being
clearly
unsound
or
clearly
unreasonable,
but
grossly
unsound.
I
don't
know
I
mean
to
me
that
is
like
applying
unwillfully
and
lawfully
unlawfully.
You
know
doing
an
act,
you
know
it's,
I
don't
know
the
motivations,
but
why?
Behind
all
the
supervisors,
I
would
tend
to
think
that
they're
only
up
and
up
99
and
9
10
of
the
time,
but
trying
to
prove
that
their
decision
was
grossly
unsound,
mean
there.
D
Let
me
point
out
like
just
briefly,
and
this
might
make
board
members
feel
a
little
better
about
I'm
not
that
I'm
trying
to
argue
the
city's
aspect
of
this.
But
if
that's
your
rule,
I
think
there's
some
advantage
in
a
well-established
legal
concept,
because
again
otherwise
what
you've
been
stuck
with
has
been
justified
and
justified.
C
Yeah-
and
I
mean-
and
I
sort
of
agree,
but
I
mean
it
just
seems:
you're
arbitrarily
raising
the
level
of
of
what
unsound
would
be
or
unreasonable
would
be
or
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence
would
be
well.
I'm
gonna.
H
I'm
gonna
push
back
with
the
idea
of
this
being
an
arbitrary
thing,
because
this
is
coming
from
at
this
as
a
legal
standard.
Grossly
unsound
gross
negligence
is
how
I
I
commonly
think
of
the
term
gross
being
used
in
law
but
grossly
unsound,
patently
unreasonable.
These
are
well-established
from
administrative
law,
which
is
the
area
that
we're
in
here,
and
I
I
don't
feel,
there's
anything
arbitrary
about
the
standards.
C
Well,
it
may
be
arbitrary
is
the
wrong
word.
It
just
seems
that
you're,
it's
making
it
relatively
more
difficult
to
show
that
there
was
unreasonableness
or
unsoundness.
You
know.
C
Well,
the
thing
about
it
is,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
abuse
of
discretion
is
even
a
proper
term.
You
know
I'm
not
not
being
intentionally
trying
to
abuse
discretion,
but
my
judgment
could
still
be
unsound
at
the
moment.
You
know
without
purposely
trying
to
abuse.
B
I
don't
think
that's
necessary
mike
in
in
our
medics
and
henning
can
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong
or
even
mr
webb.
But
if
you
I
don't
know
that
you
have
to
intend
to
abuse
your
discretion
for
it
to
be
an
abusive
discretion.
E
E
The
definition
is
that
I'm
looking
at
abusive
discretion,
always
in
the
context
of
appellate
court's
decisions,
so,
for
instance,
I'm
I've
got
a
law
dictionary
that
I've
from
my
law
school
days.
That
says
abuse
of
discretion
is
a
failure
to
exercise
legal
discretion
and
then
it
goes
on
to
talk
about
the
rationale
by
an
appellate
court.
But
then
it
goes
on
for
abuse.
H
E
Me
just
real
quick
discretion.
It
says:
use
of
one's
own
judgment,
making
a
responsible
decision,
that's
discretion.
So
to
me
it
seems,
like
you
could
say,
misuse
and
of
one's
own
judgment,
making
a
responsible
decision.
I
don't
know
I
mean
if
you've
got
a
copy
of
that
blacks
law.
Maybe
that
would
be
helpful
for
us
to.
E
H
Will
try
to?
I
will
try
to
dig
that
up.
Okay,
you
know
my
my
administrative
law
background.
I
back
before
I
was
city.
I
did
a
lot
of
law
cases
and
dealt
with
the
federal
court
and
dealt
with
what
we
call
chevron
deference,
which
is
the
standard
that
regulatory
decision
agencies
use,
and
this
is
where
my
administrative
law
thinking
comes
from.
When
let's
say
the
epa
creates
a
new
environmental
rule,
the
court
looks
at
that
and
says:
okay,
and
it
comes
called.
H
Chevron
differs
because
it
comes
from
a
case
involving
chevron,
but
basically
the
the
agency
creating
the
rules
is
they're
in
the
driver's
seat
unless
it
is
really
out
of
bounds.
H
The
court
does
not
step
in,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
recognizing
that
the
administrative
agents,
their
scientists
and
their
public
comments
and
their
thinking
over
this
for
a
year
are
in
a
better
position
to
make
the
decision
than
the
court
is
so,
unless
they're
going
really
out
of
bounds,
they're
not
going
to
overturn
a
rule,
I'm
trying
to
create
something
like
that
here
with
the
city
agencies
with
the
city's
department.
H
So,
unless
they're
really
getting
out
of
bounds,
they're
going
to
be
able
to
function
as
they
as
they
think
best,
and
yes,
it
I'm
being
completely
upfront
with
with
all
of
you.
I
am
trying
to
remove
this
bor,
some
of
this
board's
discretion
over
those
decisions
and
put
place
more
of
it
with
with
the
department.
I
think
that's
what
the
city
needs
and
for
years,
it's
not
me
saying
it's.
The
city
has
said
for
years.
H
That
is
what
it
needs,
and
I
I
do
think
that
we
would
all
benefit
from
having
more
certainty
around
the
decisions
that
departments
make
with
regard
to
their
personnel
and
that
that's
the
thinking
behind
this,
so
I'm
I'm
glad
to
to
play
with
this
definition
a
little
bit.
But
I
do
I
am
going
to
strongly
advocate
for
terms
that
get
that
across.
F
It
has
to
be
grossly
honest.
It
has
to
be
patently
unreasonable.
It
has
to
be
fully
unsupported,
substantial
evidence
and
you,
mr
public,
have
to
understand
that
your
civil
service
board
cannot
judge
these
cases
by
simple
unreasonableness
or
unsound
judgment
or
lacking
evidence.
You
know,
I
I
think
it's
just
where
that
boundary
occurs.
I
think
we
want
to
be
in
a
place
where
we
can
look
at
the
public
and
go
we're
doing
our
job.
F
You
know,
and
not
just
be
merely
somebody
that
decides
whether
a
person
a
supervisor
is
acting
in
some
alien
standard
of
us
can
really
get
our
heads
around,
because
it's
immediate,
it's
even
hard
to
imagine
any
case
coming
before
the
civil
service
board,
where
a
supervisor
had
exceeded
the
kind
of
a
boundary
you
know
it's
so
far
out
there.
H
Well,
I
I
I
think
if
the
board
wants
me
to,
I
will
work
mr
henning
to
try
to
get
to
a
good
place
with
this
language.
A
place
that
y'all
feel
like
you
can
support
and
ultimately
might
be.
The
city
council
makes
is
the
ultimate
decider
says,
because
once
y'all
pass
on
the
this
rule,
it's
up
for
the
city
council
to
amend
and
adopt
them.
So
if
they
feel
like
the
language
that
this
board
ultimately
lands
on,
is
not
strong
enough
or
is
too
strong,
then
they
they
certainly
change
that
around.
G
H
And
eventually,
once
you're,
once
your
blood
sugar
is
actually
a
certain
ratio
of
of
maple
syrup
you're.
This
is
a
little
known
fact.
They
only
tell
you
this
in
law
school,
you
are
actually
a
secret
canadian.
H
I
want
for
for
giving
me
an
hour
where
I
wasn't
just
refreshing,
a
news
site
every
five
minutes
to
see
if
we
have
a
new
president,
yet.
B
Well,
is
there
any
new
business
to
come
before
the
board
today?
B
A
Escovitz,
I
just
want
to
it's
not
a
new
business.
I
just
for
a
procedure
going
forward
for
our
next
meeting.
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
we
do
extended
invitations
to
the
pba,
fop
and
iaaf,
the
firefighters
association
and
if
mr
tulis
or
sergeant
talis
can't
be
present
that
hopefully
somebody
representing
the
pba
can
sit
in
on
his
behalf.
B
And
I
would
ask:
is
it
possible
two
things
that,
in
addition
to
the
invitation
that
they
can
get
copies
of
the
the
rough
drafts
or
the
notes
ahead
of
time,
as
well
as
us,
if
there's
any
updates
or
changes,
so
we
can
have
a
couple
of
days
or
or
a
week,
preferably
to
review
it.
H
I
will
do
my
level
best.
There
is
between
now
and
then
there
is
a
thanksgiving
holiday
and
I
mean
there's.
Sometimes
these
things
are
getting
worked
out.
The
last
minute,
just
due
to
scheduling,
certainly
with
some
some
attorneys
been
introduced
by
by
mr
telus
being
ill.
Do
my
level
best,
I
will
say
I
I
have
no
ability
to
compel
anybody
to
be
here
and
there's
some
point
where
these
these
fruits.
B
And
you're
exactly
right,
john,
we
can
let
them
know
and
if
they
come
they
fine.
If
they
don't,
then
that's
fine
too,
but
at
least
what
they
can't
say
that
we
didn't
offer
them
a
chance
to
have
their
thoughts
heard
if
they
so
wish.
E
B
B
Make
hearing
none?
Are
there
any
informal
discussions?
Further
discussions
about
feature
agenda
items
that
we
haven't
already
discussed.
B
Miss
long
is
there
anything
else
that
you
can
think
of
that
the
board
needs
to
address
today,
no
ma'am,
mr
maddox,
mr
henning.
Anything
else
that
you
all
can
think
of.
D
B
Okay,
well,
unless
anyone
else
has
any
other
last-minute
thoughts
or
observations,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn.
B
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
that
we
adjourn
mr
hi,
mr
han
hi,
mr
escovitz
hi,
mr
deborah.