►
From YouTube: Police CLA Negotiations - Day 4
Description
Monday, August 8, 2022 at 8:30 AM MDT
A
Good
morning,
everyone,
this
is
the
continuation
of
the
city
of
boise's
negotiations
with
the
boise
police
union.
I
will
remind
everyone
to
use
the
microphones
when
you're
talking,
please
and
for
a
point
of
order.
If
we
could
just
go
around
and
introduce
ourselves,
my
name
is
courtney
washburn,
I'm
the
chief
of
staff
for
the
city
of
boise,
I'm.
F
Sorry
took
me
a
little
bit
to
get
going.
I
just
dropped
into
the
folder
for
the
city's
proposals
for
today's
date.
The
city's
response
to
the
union's
counter
proposal
on
the
annual
druthers,
so
we
had
recommended
initially
that
we
would
change
the
annual
druthers
process
to
one
time
a
year
with
two
shifts
elections.
The
union
rejected
the
proposal
and
at
this
point
the
city
is
going
to
withdraw
the
proposal
completely.
So
we'll
leave
the
language
the
way
it
is
and
agree
to
the
union's
position
on
that.
F
Okay,
I
just
dropped
into
the
folder
the
city's
response
to
union
proposal
g.
So
last
week
the
union
brought
forward
a
powerpoint
presentation
talking
about
the
disciplinary
process,
brought
forward
information
regarding
various
best
practices
and
then
brought
forth
a
proposal
regarding
the
disciplinary
action.
F
The
city
has
made
a
couple
of
changes
or
recommended
changes
to
that,
one
of
which
is
the
union
have
brought
forward
the
proposal,
the
disciplinary
action
or
corrective
action
which
results
in
two
or
more
days
off.
I've
actually
made
that
stronger
for
the
union's
position
and
would
agree
to
anything
that's
one
day
off,
so
anything
with
economic
sanctions.
F
It
doesn't
have
to
be
two
days
off,
but
bringing
it
down
to
one
day
off,
leave
without
pay
a
demotion
or
firing,
and
then
the
continued
language
at
the
end,
with
concern
with
the
last
sentence
that
the
union
proposed,
where
it
talked
about
written
notification
within
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
defining
what
reasonable
is
and
the
concern
that
that
could
cause
to
both
sides
change
the
language
to
written
notification.
Prior
to
the
investigatory
interview
before
any
interview
takes
place
of
the
subject
officer.
C
I
appreciate
the
department
bolstering
that
up
on
our
side.
I
appreciate
that
I
just
have
some
questions
regarding
so
the
way
it's
written.
There
would
be
no
notification
that
the
investigation
is
ongoing
or
conducting
or
being
in
that
process.
Only
a
written
investigation
for
your
interview
is
that
is
that
the
intent,
because
that's
kind
of
how
I'm
reading
it
well.
F
C
So
I
think
our
concern
here
is
that
an
investigation
can
be
ongoing
for
a
long
period
of
time,
and
maybe
the
officer
has
heard
this-
maybe
they
haven't
through
the
rumor
mill
and
now
this
is
causing
undue
stress.
So
there's
no
requirement
the
way
it's
written.
That's
just
for
the
interview
which,
traditionally
speaking,
that's
happened
within
the
last
week
of
the
interview,
so
they
try
to
give
you
four
or
five
days
notification,
and
I
understand
that
their
workload
is
heavy
and
that
you're
working
on
that-
and
we
appreciate
that.
C
But
this
just
says
before
the
interview,
so
the
investigation
can
be
open
for
six
months,
a
year,
two
years,
45
days
three
days
without
even
letting
the
members
know
that
they're
being
investigated,
and
so
I
think,
our
real
intent
and
the
reason
we
used
reasonable
amount
of
times
because
we
want
to
give
you
latitude.
We
understand
the
bureaucracy
of
of
putting
that
all
together
and
stuff
coming
from
the
office
of
of
of
police
oversight
and
those
kinds
of
things
that
can
happen,
phone
backs
and
all
those
kinds
of
things.
C
So
I
understand
that
the
reason
reasonableness
is
kind
of
a
vague
term.
We
really
just
kind
of
put
it
in
there
because
we
want
to
give
you
the
latitude
to
make
it
workable,
but
our
intent
with
that
is
that
they
are
notified,
that
an
investigation
is
has
been
initiated
or
launched,
and
so
I
think
the
way
that
it's
written
that
doesn't
ensure
that
still-
and
so
currently
our
policy
requires
that
you
be
notified
prior
to
interviewing
and
as
a
matter
of
practicality.
C
How
would
I
show
for
the
interview
if
I
wasn't
notified,
so
I
think
that
we
still
are
looking
at
the
department's
position
to
try
to
come
up
with
a
reasonable
solution
to
notify
our
guys
that
hey,
you
are
being
investigated
much
similar
to
the
criminal
justice
system,
with
some
assurances
like
okay,
this
is
what
I'm
being
charged
with.
This
is
who's
complaining
against
me.
This
is
the
allegations
and
obviously
we're
talking
about
non-criminal
stuff.
We
we
respect
the
right
for
the
department
to
conduct
criminal
investigations.
C
We
think
that's
outside
of
of
any
of
this,
like
we've
previously
mentioned,
so
this
is
just
for
policy
and
procedure
and
and
standardization.
So
I
guess
I
just
don't
understand
why
the
department
is
unwilling
to
notify
its
members
that
they're
under
investigation,
and
so
if
we
could
figure
out
a
way
to
do
that.
I
think
that
we
could
find
that
common
ground
and
so
we're
willing
to
let
the
time
frame
be
whatever
the
department
needs
to
be
for
the
time
frame.
We
just
think
it's
a
priority
for
us
to
be
notified
that
you're
under
investigation.
B
Yeah,
I
think,
from
our
perspective,
the
reasonable
amount
of
time
just
opens
it
up.
If,
if
you
disagree
that,
if
you
think
the
city
hasn't
provided
a
reasonable
amount
of
time,
then
here's
another
grievance
that
could
be
filed
over
whether
you
got
reasonable
notice
or
not.
So
we
didn't
want
to
have
this
vague
term
in
there
that
would
open
up
the
door
to
additional
grievances.
So
I
I
think
from
our
perspective,
we
do
and
are
willing
to
provide
reasonable
notice,
but
we
don't.
F
And
then
I'd
just
like
to
add
so
looking
at
it
from
my
perspective,
one
sometimes
an
investigation
will
occur
and
the
investigation
will
disprove
the
allegations.
So
one
of
the
concerns
I
have
and
I've
seen
in
the
past
as
well,
is
if
we
were
to
notify
an
officer,
there's
an
investigation,
going
on
only
to
find
out
that
the
allegations
were
completely
unfounded.
Now
that
officer
has
the
concern
that
oh,
my
gosh,
I'm
being
investigated
for
something
if
we're
making
a
notification
too
far
ahead.
F
C
So
do
you
feel
like
if,
because
we
understand
that
minor
issues
may
be
dealt
with
by
the
supervisor,
they
may
document
that
there
was
a
complaint.
They
may
quickly
turn
them
around
and
say
this
is
you
know
it
could
be
something
of
a
demeanor
complaint
right
and
the
sergeant
gets
a
call
from
the
party
and
the
sergeant
pulls
a
videotape
documents.
The
complaint
finds
it
unfounded
in
a
very
short
period
of
time.
It
does
not
go
to
internal
affairs,
does
not
get
investigated
on
the
internal
affairs
side.
A
F
And
answer
your
question,
I
think
my
concern
with
what
you
just
said
is
we're
still
getting
into
some
vagueness.
If
we're
talking
about
what
would
be
considered
serious
or
what
the
allegations
are.
I
think
sometimes
I've
seen
in
the
past,
where
an
investigation
starts
out
with
a
relatively
benign
allegation
only
to
find
out
later
that
there
is
a
more
serious
allegation
that
stems
from
that
and
so
again
trying
to
come
up
with
something
more
definitive.
F
Obviously,
I
think
it's
easy
to
justify
and
explain
that
it
would
be.
Any
notification
would
come
prior
to
an
investigatory
interview,
but
again
recognizing
that
our
goal
would
be
to
complete
that
investigation
in
a
timely
manner
and
and
the
notification
would
occur
prior
to
the
officer
being
interviewed.
C
So
a
couple
couple
things
on
that:
chief,
based
on
past
history,
there's
often
times
that
this
notification
comes
with
an
email,
possibly
on
a
weekend
a
lot
of
times.
These
are
coming
within
less
than
a
week's
notice,
and
if
it's
on
our
days
off,
that
gives
me
three
days
four
days
to
prepare
for
the
interview
get
hold
of
our
attorney,
and
I
know
you
spoke
to
that
briefly-
that
the
delays,
but
there's
many
times
that
our
members,
the
internal
affairs
investigations,
are
not
even
checking
our
schedules.
C
C
C
This
is
coming
down
the
pipe.
I
can
immediately
correct
my
behavior
because
I
know
I
look
up
the
policy
I'm
like
yes,
this
is
what
the
policy
is
supposed
to
do.
This
is
how
I'm
supposed
to
do
this,
and
I
can
correct
my
behavior
immediately.
If
you
don't
notify
me
for
two
or
three
weeks
or
28
days,
then
all
that
behavior
is
still
occurring
and
it's
kind
of
shooting
ourselves
in
the
foot.
C
We'd
be
notified
within
10
days,
business
days
that
the
investigation
is
going
on
because
even
as
you're
saying
as
as
we
sit
here
and
we
we
work
the
streets
and
we
can
see
that
officer
plank
command
came
into
our
sergeant.
We
don't
know
what
that
complaint.
Is
we
don't
know
if
I
need
to
check
my
behavior
if
I
need
to
prepare
for
something
you
know
I
was
present,
so
I
know
the
actual
facts
that
occurred,
no
matter
what
was
alleged
and
what
maybe
I
was
in
violation.
C
We
feel
it's
super
important
to
be
notified,
that
you're
under
investigation
and
somehow
we
need
to
come
to
a
resolve
on
this,
and
we
are
more
than
willing
to
extend
those
time
frames.
However,
the
department
needs
to
see
fit.
We
just
think
that
it's
appropriate
to
tell
people
that
they're
under
investigation
prior
to
being
interviewed
no.
F
And
danny
I'll
agree
with
you
and
I'll
talk
about
you
know
you.
You
mentioned
the
example
about
you
know
a
certain
behavior
or
maybe
something
that
occurred
where
you
don't
believe
the
member
knew
it
was
a
policy
violation,
most
of
that
stuff's
going
to
be
that
investigation
is
going
to
be
conducted
by
one
of
your
own
members,
the
the
sergeant
in
charge
of
that
officer-
and
I
know
in
several
occasions
when
the
officer
talks
to
the
or
when
the
sergeant
talks
to
the
officer
about
it.
F
They
actually
would
rather
get
the
interview
over
sooner
rather
than
later,
and
so
you
talked
about.
Sometimes
you
know
being
noticed
three
days
ahead
of
time.
I've
seen
examples
where
officers
where
a
sergeant
said
hey.
I
need
to
talk
to
you
about
a
particular
issue
and
the
officer
said:
okay:
let's
do
it
right
now.
You
know
I'd
rather
get
this
over
with,
and
so
I
don't
necessarily
want
to
have
create
an
undue
delay.
F
F
Okay-
sorry,
I
I
just
I'm
with
you
and-
and
I
just
what
I'd
like
to
come
up
with,
is
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
I
think
if
we
can
all
agree
on
what
reasonable
is
in
every
situation
would
be
ideal,
but
if
we
can't
come
to
that
resolution-
and
it
creates
an
issue
for
a
potential
grievance
later
on-
that's
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
today
so
that
we
don't
have
to
deal
with
it
later.
Yeah.
C
And
I
think
that's
the
best
interest
of
everybody
right.
I
I
think
that
the
simple
process
and
we're
not
really
getting
into
the
weeds
on
the
process,
but
even
a
simple
thing
or
a
sergeant,
may
be
conducting
investigation
and
that
may
have
occurred
within
the
shift
that
I'm
working
right
and
we
can
do
it
quickly,
a
simple
email
where
they
say
you
were
complained
against
related
to
demeanor
on
this
date
from
this
person.
C
That
process
should
be
pretty
pretty
easy
versus
the
formalized
process
and
it
shouldn't
cause
any
delays
shouldn't
cause.
Any
undue
stress.
The
undue
stress
comes
from
our
members
from
the
lack
of
trust,
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
10
working
days,
14
days
yeah.
If
we
need
to
give
more,
we
can
and
a
simple
process
of
notifying
us
which
can
be
electronic
or
written.
I
mean
even
an
email
from
your
supervisor
saying
we're
investigating
you
on
this.
I've
already
interviewed
you
on
this.
C
This
is
your
notification
would
be
an
easy
thing
to
resolve
on
the
process,
side
and
we'd.
Leave
that
to
the
organization
to
figure
out.
It's
just
it's
a
trust
issue
for
us
and
we
feel
like
it
is
a
national
best
practice
and
we
feel
like
that's
something
that
we
would
like
to
do.
So
I
think
we
we
can
come
up
with
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
and
maybe
counter
that
or
have
a
further
discussion
on
the
time,
but
I
mean
if
we
need
to
go
to
two
weeks.
C
F
F
Okay,
I
just
dropped
in
and
edited
version
or
an
updated
version
of
proposal,
9
that
the
city
brought
forward
previously,
and
that
is
regarding
the
civil
service
mou.
Previously,
the
union
had
rejected
the
city's
initial
proposal,
which
removed
a
vast
majority
of
the
language.
What
I
have
done
in
this
case
is
actually
gone
through
and
taken
the
document
and
highlighted
areas
in
either
green,
yellow
or
red.
The
green
areas,
as
you
see
on
the
legend
at
the
top,
are
items
that
the
city
is
proposing
that
could
be
incorporated
into
the
cla.
F
The
items
highlighted
in
yellow
would
be
what
we
would
offer
to
enter
into
the
department's
policy
manual
and
items
highlighted
in
red.
We
are
recommending
removal
if
you
look
at
the
document.
You'll
also
see
that,
throughout
the
document
there
are
areas
in
which
I
have
placed
comments
that
either
explain
why
we
recommend
removal
items
that
we
believe
should
be
in
policy
for
certain
reasons
and
or
items
that
are
currently
in
the
cla
already,
which
is
the
reason
that
we're
recommending
just
striking
the
language
all
together,
because
it's
already
covered
within
the
cla.
F
C
Yeah,
I
think
our
best
move
forward
is.
We
will
review
this
on
a
quick
break
or
a
break.
I
shouldn't
say
quick
on
a
break
and
then
we
can
come
back
and
have
some
discussions
and
find
that
common
ground.
I
just
wanna
the
civil
service
rules
already
enamel
you
to
the
contract,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
both
on
the
same
page
that
we
consider
them
part
of
the
contract.
C
We
had
a
hearing
during
a
grievance
where
the
hearing
officer
declared
that
they're
part
of
the
contract,
and
so
we
want
to
make
it
clear
that
our
position
is.
They
are
part
of
the
contract.
Currently,
we
are
willing
to
incorporate
some
of
them
into
policy
and
some
of
them
into
the
cla.
So
I
think
we
can
just
find
those
common
grounds
and
move
forward,
we'll
just
have
to
review
them.
C
C
B
C
C
So
we're
asking
for
that
list
of
90
days
to
slide
if
there
is
an
eligibility
list
or
somebody
is
waiting
to
be
promoted,
that
the
extension
by
the
department
isn't
used
for
ill
intent
and
where
they're
just
going
to
make
the
list
expire
and
then
make
a
new
list
to
pick
off
people.
So
we've
added
that.
I
think
we
had
a
discussion
about
that
already
once
prior
to
your
counter
proposal,
but
we've
added
this
language
to
it
and
we'll
let
you
review
it.
If
you
have
questions.
F
So
I
guess
theoretically
the
and
I'm
doing
my
best
not
to
be
offended
by
the
you
know
ill
intent,
and
you
know
all
these
things
and-
and
I
understand
you've
talked
about
previous
administrations
and
all
that
it
wouldn't
be
something
that
that
we
would
do,
but
that
language
doesn't
exist
and
so
whether
it
was
30
days
or
90
days.
I
guess
in
that
you
know
that
sinister
world,
that
you're
talking
about
the
same
thing
could
happen
during
that
30-day
period
that
could
happen
in
that
day
period.
F
F
That
expires,
but
yet
still
be
on
a
list
after
that,
which
I
think
does
a
disservice
to
the
other
members
who
would
be
on
the
new
list.
One
of
the
things
that
I'll
talk
about
is
in
the
modifications
to
the
cla
one
of
the
recommendations
that
was
made.
I
know
you
didn't
have
a
chance
to
look
at
it,
but
the
department
desire
is
to
have
an
active
eligibility
list
at
all
times.
F
So
the
goal
is
that
when
a
list
is
coming
up
to
expire,
we
would
have
another
process
in
place.
That
would
create
a
new
list,
the
minute
that
one
expires.
So
there
would
be
an
active
list
ongoing
and
with
this
language,
you're,
basically
saying
that
the
new
list
that
has
been
established
based
on
you
know,
current
time
period,
current
job
performance,
current
evaluation
of
an
employee's
performance
on
the
job.
C
I
appreciate
that
and-
and
this
is
not
to
denote
in
any
way
any
ill
intention
that
you
or
chief
lee
have
done
to
us.
However,
the
30
days
has
been
used
to
prevent
people
from
being
promoted
that
previous
administrations
have
had
issues
with
the
90
days.
So
we
currently
the
way
it's
been
prior
to
chiefly
in
your
arrival,
is
there's
always
been
a
an
eligibility
list
for
supervisors.
It's
never
a
list.
That's
expired
in
the
past.
That's
how
it's
been.
We
always
have
a
test.
C
That's
conducted
prior
to
that
list
expiring
the
90
days.
So
I
have
concerns
because
we
have
a
list.
However,
the
list
is,
however,
the
test
goes,
you
have,
you
know
who's
on
the
list
and
then
we
have
a
vacancy
okay.
So
you
already
know
before
the
vacancy
who
your
people
are,
how
their
performance
is,
who
the
top
person
should
be,
and
basically
the
ability
to
make
your
management
decisions.
C
So
even
though
you
don't
intend
to
use
it
this
way,
you
know
you
won't
be
here
for
25
years,
probably
maybe
you
will,
but
you
probably
won't
no,
but
the
members
on
the
side
of
the
table
will,
and
so
our
concern
is
that
not
necessarily
you
but
somebody
that
follows
you
could
use
it
an
ill
intention
and
it
kicks
that
door
open
more
than
30
days.
Yes,
they
could
do
that
for
the
30-day
period
we
prefer
that
they
don't
do
it
that
way,
and
if
we
could
figure
out
a
way
to
make
that
happen.
C
F
F
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
that
that
additional
language,
I
don't
think
it
creates
some
issue
in
which
there
is
a
perception
issue,
and
and
again
I
don't
want
to
bring
it
to
a
place
where
there
could
be
an
argument
on
intent
where
one
person
feels
that
intent
is
one
way
versus
what
you
know.
The
the
actual
intent
is
by
you
know
the
chief
or
whoever
the
chief
is
at
that
time.
C
But
really
our
biggest
concern
is
management.
Already.
Has
the
ability
to
choose,
they
already
have
the
ability
to
know
they
have
the
ability
to
bypass
people
that
are
on
the
list
for
cause.
So
if
somebody's
performance
is
not
there,
they
don't
have
to
go
with
the
top
three
members
in
that
list.
Under
the
current
rules
they
can
bypass
them
up
to
you
know
multiple
times
before
they
have
to
tell
them
the
reason
why,
but
even
even
after
that,
they
have
the
right
to
bypass
them
and
take
them
off
the
list.
C
C
C
So
really
what
we're
asking
for
there's
really
two
ways
we
can
go-
and
I
think
adam
alluded
to
this
earlier-
is
what
happens
in
portland,
which
is
on
any
discipline.
We
just
file
the
grievance
and
then
the
city
attorney
can
spin
their
wheels
and
maybe
it'll
go
to
grievance
hearing.
Maybe
it
won't
and
it
seems
like
a
waste
of
everybody's
time.
C
We
do
appreciate
that
we
have
a
solid
screening
process
and
just
to
put
it
in
context,
because
I
know
that
you're
you're,
newer,
we've
had
two
hearings
in
four
years
on
a
grievance
and
we've
probably
had
three
in
eight
to
ten
years.
So
it's
not
a
process
that
we
take
lightly.
We
haven't
filed
grievances
that
we've
negotiated
with
the
organization
and
come
to
common
terms
on,
but
as
far
as
hearings
go,
we've
only
had
three
in
eight
to
ten
years.
C
So
this
is
not
a
process
that
we
utilize
a
ton
and
I
think
that
shows
our
discretion
on
the
screening
side,
which
jamie
asked
some
questions
on,
and
so
what
our
concern
is
is
part
of
that
process
is
we
have
to
send
the
internal
affairs
investigation?
The
department
does
to
the
city
legal
for
redactions
and
approvals.
C
Then
we
have
to
schedule
the
grievance
committee
the
ability
to
come
in
and
read
that
and
then
we
have
to
do
a
hearing
after
it.
So
we
can
try
to
come
up
with
some
time
frames
and
say:
okay,
if
the
city's
willing
to
get
it
redacted
in
48
hours
or
72
hours
and
they're
willing
to
schedule
it
within
24
hours
and
shorten
some
of
that
process.
C
That'll
help
for
us
to
meet
the
32
days,
otherwise
we're
going
to
have
to
come
back
with
some
more
time
and
otherwise
we're
going
to
end
up
in
a
situation
like
portland,
we're
just
filing
grievances
and
then
down
the
road,
we'll
figure
out
whether
we're
actually
going
to
file
hearings
or
not
or
whether
we're
going
to
cancel
them.
It
just
seems
like
a
waste
of
time
and
we
don't
really
want
to
waste
the
department's
time
or
the
city's
time
in
that
manner.
F
That
could
be
condensed
from
a
union
side
to
ensure
that
it
occurs
within
that
32-day
window,
because
I
just
wasn't
familiar
with
kind
of
some
of
the
challenges
that
you
had
faced,
and
so
my
thought
process
was
a.
Is
there
a
way
the
union
could
change
the
process
a
little
bit
and
then
be?
If
there
is
something
on
the
city
side
that
has
initially
slowed
you
down,
then?
C
So
we
we
have
had
to
ask
for
several
extensions
and
I
think
the
extension,
the
intent
of
the
extension
extending
those
out
or
even
asking
for
more
time,
is
for
us
to
do
a
quality
screening
screening
process,
because
we
don't
just
say:
oh,
you
have
received
discipline,
we'll
file
a
grievance.
We
say,
let's
review
it,
if
you're
in
the
wrong
we're
not
going
to
support
it.
C
If
there's
some
kind
of
mistreatment
due
to
the
discipline
or
some
kind
of
mis
information
that
came
out
in
the
fact
finding,
then
we'll
go
forward
with
it
and
so
the
process
is
we
ask
our
members?
I
will
continue
to
reiterate
this
somewhere
between
seven
and
ten
days,
I
mean
it's
a
big
decision
to
decide
to
fight
been
getting
disciplined.
So
that's
a
unique
perspective
from
the
member
side,
so
we
ask
him
between
seven
and
ten
days
to
file
the
agreements
with
the
union,
and
then
we
have
to
take
that
to
the
chief.
C
The
chief
has
to
review
it.
He
needs
a
day
or
so
to
review
that
probably
and
then
decide
whether
he's
going
to
file
that
or
fight
that,
where
that
goes
then
from
there
we
notify
internal
affairs,
which
then
sends
it
to
city,
and
the
redaction
process
is
can
take
some
time
because
it's
going
down
to
city
legal
and
you
know
they
have
things
to
do,
and
then
it
comes
back.
C
And
so
we
can
either
push
that
time
just
a
little
bit
and
I
think
we
can
meet
instead
of
asking
for
extensions,
which
I
think
is
a
bad
practice.
We
can
ask
for
us.
We
asked
for
45
days,
that's
a
that
was
an
extension
of
13
days.
We
can
possibly
shorten
that
to
a
few
more
days
or
we
can
leave
it
the
way
it
is
and
and
and
go
down
the
the
the
way
of
of
filing
grievances.
C
It's
just
not
our
intent
to
waste
people's
times
and
to
do
diligence
related
to
screening,
because
I
think
it
matters.
It
gives
credibility
to
the
organization
that
the
union
supports
some
of
the
discipline
and
some
of
the
issues
and
says
no
we're
not
going
to
take
disagreements
because
you
were
in
the
wrong,
and
so
I
think
it
lends
credibility
to
our
intent
to
hold
our
members
accountable.
Just
like
the
department
is
and
to
support
the
department
in
their
disciplinary
and
corrective
action
decisions.
C
When
we
screen
stuff
out
and
say
no
we're
not
going
to
push
this
down
the
road
versus
yeah
you
you
don't
like
it
so
we're
filing
agreements.
We
don't
want
to
get
in
that
boat.
I
think
that's
that's
bad
business
for
the
union.
I
think
it
undermines
the
department
and
it
really
does
not
help
the
citizens
either.
So
we'll
come
back
with
a
written
proposal
on
the
counter
side
for
that,
but
that's
kind
of
where
we're
looking.
C
D
D
D
But
if
it's
an
attorney
then
you're
running
into
schedule,
issues
with
attorneys,
I'm
not
picking
on
attorneys
jamie's,
not
here,
but
we
all
know
attorney
schedules
so
and
then
that's
the
opportunity
for
the
member
to
address
the
grievance
committee
on
how
they
feel
you
know.
The
grievance
committee
has
already
reviewed
the
internal
affairs
investigation
and
then
that's
the
members
time
with
the
committee
and
their
their
legal
representative
to
kind
of
give
their
side
to
the
union
grievance
committee.
D
So
after
that
meeting
takes
place,
the
grievance
committee
will
decide
immediately
following
that
meeting
with
the
member,
whether
or
not
that
is
going
to
go
forward
at
that
time.
We
either
tell
the
member
that
it's
not
going
forward
or
we
sign
off
on
that
grievance
and
then
it
immediately
gets
delivered
to
the
chief.
All
those
things
have
to
happen
in
that
32-day
window.
D
That's
the
formal
giving
to
the
chief
after
if
we've
signed
off
on
it
as
the
grievance
committee,
then
it
goes
to
the
chief
and
then
that
next
timeline
that
10
days,
which
I'm
assuming
you're
looking
at
that's
when
that
10
days
kicks
in
with
the
chief
okay.
So
we're
looking
at
trying
to
get
all
that
stuff
done
within
32
days
and
when,
when
denny
was
talking
about
three
times
and
that
he
was
just
talking,
that's
how
many
times
we
have
gone
to
a
formal
hearing.
F
F
I
think
I
would
know
relatively
quickly
whether
or
not
I
want
to
bring
it
to
the
union's
attention
which
that
seven
to
ten
days
eats
up.
You
know
almost
a
quarter
of
that
time
that
we're
talking
about
right
now.
Is
there
a
way
to
reduce
that
and
then
my
second
question
to
you
is
you
mentioned
filing
an
extension?
F
C
F
C
I
think
I
think
we
can
condense
some
of
that
time
and
request
our
members
and
we
can
squeeze
them
on
the
front
side,
but
we
also
need
to
figure
out
the
timeline
on
the
back
side
too.
So
I
think
I
think
we
can
request
that
to
to
stay
smaller
and
ask
our
members
to
to
get
that
done
quicker,
and
I
think
that
will
shorten
some
of
the
need
for
extension,
but
not
all
of
it
and.
F
I
would
be
agreeable
to
placing
some
sort
of
timeline
on
legal
to
prepare
the
documents
for
you
guys
so
in
an
effort
to
again
expedite
that
coming
up
with
some
period
in
which
maybe
legal
has
a
certain
period
of
time
to
prepare
all
those
documents
for
you
guys
and
maybe
even
with
language-
that
if
legal
goes
over
that
then,
however
long,
however
many
additional
days
that
would
be
if
there
were
any,
could
be
added
on
to
the
time
in
which
you
have
to
file
that
grievance.
Does
that
make
sense,
it
does.
C
A
E
E
So
once
we
deny
the
grievance,
their
options
are
to
go
to
the
body
and
appeal
to
the
entire
body
of
the
union
like
at
a
meeting
per
se,
and
then
that
would
also
require
them
to
open
up
their
entire
file
for
that
to
be
voted
on
to
the
entire
body
and
then
the
second
step
to
that
is
they
can
appeal
to
the
national
union
as
well.
So
they
have
two
two
other
steps
that
they
can
take.
C
With
that,
I
think
if
we
take
a
caucus,
what
do
you
think
45
minutes
probably
close
to
45
minutes
to
go
through
that
civil
service?
So
we
can
come
back
and
discuss
that
and
we'll
create
a
couple
of
other
short
documents.
The
stuff
we've
talked
about
this
morning
and
see
if
we
can't
get
those
resolved
and.
A
C
C
F
C
C
Sure
and
the
10
business
days
is
basically
just
trying
to
give
it
a
two-week
window.
If
we
need
to
push
that
a
little
bit,
I
don't
think
that's
a
problem
for
us.
It's
really
just
trying
to
give
you
guys
enough
time
to
make
that
happen.
So
I
understand
that
you'll
need
to
check
with
that
division
to
make
sure
that's
that'll
work.
Yes,
please.
F
C
And
then
I
think
if
we
open
the
city's
proposal
on
the
civil
service,
that
we
can
at
least
come
to
some
verbal
agreements
on
some
of
this,
and
we
possibly
could
we're
going
to
need
more
time
to
get
through
all
of
it.
Obviously,
but
we
can
start
down
that
road
and
knock
off
the
things
that
we
can.
We
can
get
out.
C
C
C
C
Now,
with
four
and
five
we
would
request,
or
we
will
propose
that
the
definition
under
four
of
involuntary
transfer
makes
its
way
into
what
the
cla
definitions
end
up
being
on
the
wording,
so
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
related
to
what
an
involuntary
transfer
is
as
well
as
the
definition
under
five
of
involuntary
transfer
for
cause.
We
would
ask
that
you
know
we
put
those
into
the
definition
sections
also.
C
Then
we
would
want
to
review
more
time
for
the
rest
of
these
or
counter
propose
some
things.
So
I,
without
speaking
out
of
turn,
like
you
just
mentioned,
I
think
the
things
that
are
in
green
that
are
below
that
probably
won't
be
a
problem
for
us.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
language
we
don't
need
any
language
changes,
but,
as
a
general
rule,
the
things
that
are
in
green
below
that
we're
amenable
to.
C
C
C
C
Once
it
comes
back
and
then
the
rest,
we
just
leave
it
at
32
days,
adding
the
if
city
legal
needs
more
than
72
hours,
that
it
just
slides
that
32
day
by
that
delay,
and
so
we'll
we'll
repropose
that
counter
proposal.
But
that's
really
where
we're
at
so
72
hours
for
legal
to
do
their
approvals
and
redactions
once
it
returns
to
ia
24
hours
to
make
the
schedule
and
then,
if
legal
needs
more
than
that,
that
the
32
day
limit
would
slide
with.
However
long
it
took
them
to
do
the
redaction.
C
B
B
C
D
C
F
F
F
Might
I
propose
maybe
a
compromise
trying
to
reduce
kind
of
a
lot
of
that
additional
language
and
maybe,
instead
of
getting
into
all
that
detail,
changing
your
initial
proposal
from
32
to
45,
and
maybe
we
just
add
a
week
on
to
it
and
say
39
days
and
then
eliminate
all
of
that
extra
confusion
with
different
timelines
and
everything.
So
basically
saying
we'll
give
you
an
additional
week,
my
expectation
from
you
guys
is
going
to
be.
You
know,
to
try
and
work
with
a
membership
and
have
them
not
wait.
F
Seven
to
ten
days
before
they
bring
a
potential
issue
to
you
guys.
So
I'm
willing
to
bend
a
little
bit
on
this
not
quite
go
to
the
45
but
give
the
union
an
additional
week,
but
just
ask
in
return.
You
guys
try
and
help
us
reduce
that
time
frame
by
getting
members
to
come
to
you
sooner
with
potential
grievances.
B
A
I
think
in
terms
of
the
schedule,
would
you
all
like
to
caucus
and
continue
your
discussions
about
the
civil
service
proposal,
or
did
you
want
to
break
for
the
day
and
come
back
with
that
at
our
next
scheduled
meeting?
It's
it's
really
up
to
you
all,
or
you
may
have
more
things
we
can
get
through
today.
I
I
don't
know.
C
I
think
if
we
caucused
and
continued
today,
we
would
make
a
little
progress,
but
I
think
if
we
wait,
we
should
be
able
to
come
back
with
pretty
close
to
what
we
we
need
out
of
it
or
or
start
from
there.
We'll
have
a
better
idea.
So
I
think
our
recommendation
would
be
we
break
after
we
do
this
a
couple
of
tas
and
then
that
way
we
have
all
our
ducks
in
a
row
to
come
back
and
that
way
we're
not
wasting
any
time
and-
and
we
should
be
good.