►
From YouTube: Police CLA Negotiations - Day 8
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).
A
Good
morning,
everyone,
this
is
the
collective
bargaining
session
between
the
city
of
Boise
and
the
Boise
Police
Union,
as
is
our
custom.
If
we
could
just
go
around
and
introduce
ourselves,
that
would
be
great.
My
name
is
Courtney
Washburn
I'm,
the
chief
of
staff
for
the
city
of
Boise.
H
Well,
good
morning,
every
Everybody
I
wanted
to
come
in
to
address
a
couple
things
and
recognizing
I'm,
not
just
speaking
to
you,
but
to
you
new
members
of
the
department
and
the
community
as
a
whole.
H
At
this
moment,
I'm
here
to
it,
because
I
think
before
we
begin
today's
proceedings,
I
want
to
address
the
steps
I'll
be
taking
after
learning,
a
retired
police
department,
officer,
Matt,
bringlesson's
participation
in
a
white
nationalist
conference
and
his
ongoing
contributions
to
racist
dehumanizing
propaganda,
while
serving
as
a
sworn
officer
in
the
department
I'm
launching
a
full
investigation
into
the
actions
of
retired
officer
bringlesson
and
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
or
whether
these
ideas
impact
the
department.
Further
that
this
officer
served
in
this
department
for
two
decades
is
appalling.
H
H
Our
community
deserves
a
police
department
worthy
of
their
investment
and
Trust
BPD
staff,
who
work
day
in
and
day
out
to
live
up
to
their
commitment
to
protect
and
serve.
This
community
find
themselves
as
morally
outraged.
As
I
am
that
the
racist
dehumanizing
propaganda
spouted
by
at
least
one
of
their
co-workers
deserve
to
know
that
we
have
their
backs,
we
will
conduct
an
independent
investigation
through
an
independent
investigator
with
deep
experience
in
this
type
of
work.
H
The
community
city,
council
and
my
office
deserve
to
know
if
any
resources
were
used
by
bringlesson
or
others
in
the
department
to
advance
racist
ideology,
we
will
seek
to
determine
if
there
were
residents
whose
rights
were
violated
or
interactions
with
officers
impacted
by
action
taken
by
officers.
Espousing
this
ideology.
H
We
will
also
seek
to
determine
if
people
within
the
department
were
impacted.
Workers
within
the
department
were
impacted
because
they
pushed
back
against
this
ideology.
We
will
know
after
this
investigation
the
extent
to
which
this
is
or
is
not
pervasive
within
the
department,
and
we
will
act
accordingly.
H
Let
me
be
clear,
I
expect
and
the
community
deserves
your
full
cooperation,
your
honesty
and
integrity
to
the
Oaths.
You've
sworn
in
this
investigation.
I
expect
this
from
the
union
from
Department
leadership
from
every
one
of
our
Rank
and
file
officers
and
our
staff.
This
is
no
time
to
consider.
Circling
the
wagons
and
I
will
not
tolerate
anyone
who
tries
to
impede
this
investigation
in
any
way
and
for
those
in
the
Boise
polite
Police
Department.
H
H
And,
finally,
because
we
have
to
take
care
of
the
officers
that
are
here
in
good
faith
and
Good
Will
to
protect
and
serve
I've
directed
my
team
to
continue
to
bargain
in
good
faith
at
this
table.
So
we
might
appropriately
compensate
and
recognize
those
in
the
department
who
wake
up
every
day
and
I
know
they
do
to
protect
everyone
in
our
community
living
out
their
sworn
oath
in
service
to
the
residents
of
Boise.
E
The
union
would
like
to
to
follow
the
mayor's
comment
with
a
statement.
We
denounce
Mr
brigelson's
actions,
his
beliefs.
We
support
the
mayor
and
her
desire
to
ensure
that
the
department
doesn't
have
those
issues.
We
support
the
mayor
and
her
her
beliefs
and
that
people
are
humans
and
they
should
be
treated
with
respect
and
with
dignity.
E
But
at
the
same
time
we
also
want
to
notify
the
public
that
Mr
bringlesson
was
not
a
member
of
the
union.
He
was
a
member
of
management
and
we
will
full,
hardly
you
know,
cooperate
and
I
think
that
you
will
find
that
the
citizens
of
Boise
the
trust
that
they
have
has
earned
minus
this
blemish
from
a
former
officer,
and
so
we
support
the
mayor
and
her
beliefs
and
going
forward,
and
we
wanted
to
announce
his
actions.
100
percent.
A
And
with
that,
the
city
intends
to
continue
our
bargaining
discussions,
I
believe
it's
our
intent
for
me
to
turn
the
microphone
over
to
Adam,
to
just
do
an
overview
of
what
the
city
believes
it's
still
waiting
on,
and
then,
if,
if
we
don't
have
that
quite
right,
if
you
guys
would
just
let
us
know
as
we
move
forward
foreign.
G
Thank
you,
so
I've
got
a
list
of
items
that
I
think
are
still
open
or
we're
waiting
for
responses
on
one
is
the
CLA
cleanup
language,
I
I
think
there
were
some
agreement
on
some
of
the
changes,
but
I,
don't
I'm,
not
I,
don't
think
that
we
have
resolved
or
reached
a
conclusion
on
all
of
them
and
so
I
think
at
some
point
we
need
to
not
lose
sight
of
that
and
there's
a
number
of
items
that
we
have
ta'd
and
I'll
just
list
these,
so
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
the
city's
proposal,
one
the
city's
proposal
to
the
city's
proposal
for
the
city's
proposal.
G
G
And
then
I
have
there's
a
couple.
Others
I
have
question
marks
the
city's
proposal.
Three
I
think
we
gave
you
a
counter
proposal
on
August,
3rd
and
I'm,
not
sure
of
the
status
of
that
someone
on
our
a
member
of
our
team
thought
we
had
a
tentative
agreement,
but
I
didn't
we
don't
haven't
actually
signed
tentative
agreement,
so
I
think
we
need
to
check
on
the
status
of
the
city's
proposal.
Three.
G
Proposal:
six,
the
quarterly
firearms
training
we
presented
that
on
July,
13th
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
we've
gotten
a
response
on
that
I
think
that's
still
open
and
then
proposal
10
the
workers,
comp
proposal.
We
provided
a
proposal
on
August
3rd
and
again
BC
Brooks
had
listed
that
as
a
tentative
agreement.
We
don't
actually
have
assigned
tentative
agreement
on
that.
So
I
think
we
need
to
check
on
the
status
of
that
as
well
and
then
I
can
run
through
the
union
proposals
and
just
do
a
brief
summary.
G
So
it's
my
understanding
proposal
a
was
withdrawn
and
is
now
being
negotiated
as
part
of
proposal.
G.
G
G
Proposal
e
was
rejected
by
the
city
and
I,
don't
believe
it's
been
formally
withdrawn,
but
I
don't
think,
there's
been
any
discussion
about
it
for
a
while
proposal.
F
we
have
a
tentative
agreement
on
that
proposal.
The
mou
regarding
the
covid
vaccine
policy.
We
rejected
that
proposal
and
I.
Don't
think
there's
been
any
discussion
about
it
since
we
rejected
it
hasn't
been
formally
withdrawn.
G
The
mou
regarding
fto
compensation
is
open.
G
Yeah
the
mou
regarding
the
crisis
negotiations
unit
Sergeant
compensation
I
think
we
agreed
to
include
that
mou
language
in
the
the
next
CLA
we
just
we
haven't
formally
T8
it,
but
I
think
that's
what
we
agreed
to
do.
G
And
I
believe
that's
when,
when
I
was
going
back
through
the
proposals,
that
was
the
last
proposal
on
the
issue.
But
if,
if
you
have
given
us
something
since
then,
please
let
us
know
and
then
the
other
proposals,
the
economic
proposals.
I
think
those
are
all
open
as
part
of
the
overall
compensation
package.
E
Yeah
I
think
that
seems
to
be
fairly
correct.
E
E
E
Sorry
I
was
just
clarifying
your
question:
guy
Hallam
and.
A
A
We
all
agree
that
we
all
know
like
that
was
at
an
accurate
list
and
the
only
addition
was
proposal.
10.
E
We're
gonna
have
to
go
back
and
review
it
real
quick.
If
you
want
to
take
a
break,
we
can
go.
Do
that
on
a
breakout
session
or
we
can.
We
can
move
forward
and
then,
during
that
next
breakout
session,
we
can
review
it.
A
And
it's
my
understanding,
Adam
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
that
now
this
city
is
anticipating
a
wage
proposal
by
the
Union,
are
you
prepared
to
do
that.
E
Yes,
I
think
prior
to
us,
starting
on
that
we
kind
of
need
to
get
a
resolve
on
the
number
of
full-time
employees
that
this
would
affect.
E
Even
on
the
15th
Biff,
you
used
311
employees.
We
want
to
kind
of
clarify
that
because-
and
maybe
Chief
Warner
could
speak
to
it
a
little
more,
but
there
are
approximately
21
non-union
members
in
that
311.
So
we
we
feel
the
numbers
290,
but
when
the
city
provides
us
with
cost
estimates,
they're
using
311,
which
is
a
6.8
percent
difference,
and
so
we
kind
of
need
to
get
to
that
before.
We
really
start
looking
hard
at
numbers.
C
Y'all
speaking
and
I'll
do
some
validation,
real
quick,
but
my
understanding
in
the
questica
system
is
that
there's
311
Union
tagged
positions.
So
so
let
me
double
check
on
that
and
I'll
get
right
back
to
you.
Okay,.
D
So,
just
just
so
I
can
jump
in
bit
just
to
kind
of
give
you
an
idea.
So
we
have
I,
think
245,
union
members
and
I
think
we
have
four
that
are
eligible
and
are
not
so
if
you
took
that
would
not
include
anybody.
That's
a
new
hire
on
probation,
so
I
think
unless
we
have
61
in
training
which
I
don't
believe
is
accurate,
I,
don't
think
it's
even
close
to
that
then
the
311
number
will
be
off
just
just
so
you're
aware
yeah.
E
Yeah
so
I
think
the
three
of
the
11
number
includes
the
chief,
the
deputy
chief,
the
captains
lieutenants
and
all
that
which
are
not
part
of
this
negotiation.
So
if
there
was
a
pay
raise
negotiated,
it
wouldn't
apply
to
them,
although
maybe
the
chief
would
like
that,
and
so
that
accounts
for
about
a
6.8
percent
difference.
And
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
when
you're
crunching
numbers,
you're
crunching
real
numbers
for
us
so
we're
all
on
the
same
page
and
not
having
a
seven
percent
error
factor
or
cushion
so
to
speak.
E
E
E
If
you
look
at
the
slide
one,
it
has
the
pay
schedule
proposed
by
the
city
on
September
15th,
a
through
M
schedules.
With
the
time
grades,
the
proposed
pay,
the
middle
column,
has
our
current
pay
schedule
with
our
current
pay.
E
The
blue
highlights
are
changes
because
we
don't
have
a
current
pay
grade
for
four
years
six
years,
eight
years
Etc
and
then
the
union
counter
proposal
for
pay
schedule
times
and
grade
and
a
six
and
a
half
percent
pay
raise
and
what
those
numbers
would
be
and
the
far
right
column
is
the
dollar
difference
between
what
the
city
proposed
and
what
we're
proposing.
E
If
you
go
down
to
page
three
I
guess
it
is
slide
three.
This
is
year
two
six
and
a
half
percent
raise
what
those
figures
would
look
like
time
and
grade
slide.
Four
is
what
the
sergeants
would
look
like,
given
the
current
pay
structure,
scale.
E
And
then
Additionally,
the
last
page
has
to
do
with
post
certification
pay
detective
incentive
pay,
which
we've
already
presented
and
have
have
yet
to
hear
back
on
and
the
sick
leave
buy
down
proposal,
along
with
the
proposed
on-call
changes
previously
made.
A
If
I'm
going
to
assume
and
Adam
that
this
is
enough
information
that
the
city
probably
wants
to
caucus,
but
I'll
hold
the
space
to
see.
If
there
are
any
questions
before
we
do
so.
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
Courtney
I'm,
quick
response
back
to
the
311
question,
so
I'm
going
to
drop
a
file
in
the
city's
folder
I
mean
it
specifies
every
single
position,
that's
included
in
that
311
and
they
are
non-probationary
and
they
are
classified
as
Union
positions.
I
mean
it
may
be
the
difference
between
approved
FTE,
Authority
and
filled
positions.
I
don't
know
if,
if
that
might
be
the
discrepancy
that
is
driving
the
perception,
but
the
city
is
we're
forecasting
into
the
future.
C
We
hope
to
get
to
a
point
where
all
of
those
positions
are
filled,
so
would
that
be
helpful
to
see
that
list
of
all
those
positions.
E
I
think
so,
but
you
know
we're
not
so
much
concerned,
we
understand
the
vacancy
rate
and
that
we're
gonna
base
the
numbers
on
if
those
vacancies
were
filled.
But
my
understanding-
and
maybe
the
chief
can
speak
to
this
or
perhaps
Chief
Washburn
could
speak
to
it.
Is
the
department
is
slated
for
311
full-time
employees
to
include
captains,
lieutenants,
Deputy,
Chiefs
and
Chiefs,
and
so
I
just
perhaps
were
slated
for
332.,
but
we're
just
reviewing
budget
numbers
and
City
meeting
notes.
E
A
It's
best
if
we
just
take
this
with
your
wage
counter
proposal
and
just
be
in
a
position
to
fully
answer
it
or
it
sounds
like
we
might
go
back
and
forth
on
this
for
quite
a
while.
It's
not
the
city's
intention
to
pull
resources
from
your
existing
members.
We
obviously
need
to
have
the
right
number
so
we'll
go
back
and
look
at
that
I
suspect
it's
the
vacancies
of
the
officers.
A
We
would
like
to
pay
at
the
same
rate
we're
paying
them
now,
but
we
can
go
back
and
look
any
other
questions
before.
B
B
Yes,
Jamie
no
I
was
just
going
to
say
during
that
break.
It
might
be
beneficial
as
well
for
the
union
to
look
at
that
list
to
see
who
we're,
including
that
should
not
be
included,
and
that
way
we
can
match
between
the
two.
A
If
everybody
could,
let
me
know
when
we're
ready.
A
Ready,
okay,
I
just
wanted
to
just
make
sure
in
terms
of
process
that
you
all
knew
the
eligible
Council
dates
to
ratify
any
agreements
over
the
next
month.
A
The
council
has
a
meeting
on
November
29th
at
6
and
December
6th
at
6..
They
do
have
a
day
meeting,
but
we
wouldn't
normally
put
something
like
this
on
that
agenda,
and
then
the
next
scheduled
to
the
council
meeting
is
January
10th,
so
there's
quite
a
gap
due
to
the
holiday
I
just
wanted
to
make
you
all
aware
of
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Adam.
G
Okay
and
then
we
did
verify
during
the
break
that
there
are
311
positions
in
the
bargaining
unit
if
they're
all
filled.
G
G
So
wages
were
sticking
with
the
city's
proposed
pay
structure
from
that
that
we've,
given
you
the
last
time
we
met
but
we're
increasing
the
wages
so
we're
proposing
a
six
percent
increase
in
year,
one
in
base
pay
and
a
five
percent
increase
in
year
two
for
incentive
pay
we're
proposing
for
the
ftos.
They
would
get
the
five
percent
that
they're
currently
getting
under
the
mou.
G
So
we
would
incorporate
the
mou
plus
we're
proposing
they'll,
get
an
additional
five
percent
while
actively
training
a
new
officer
to
provide
incentive
for
those
individuals
to
serve
in
that
position.
Detective
detective
pay
we're
willing
to
provide
three
percent
and
send
a
pay
for
detectives.
There's
a
total
of
40
detectives.
It
would
apply
to
all
of
them
comp
time
we're
continuing
to
propose
our
proposal
number
eight,
which
was
an
originally
presented
on
July
13th,
and
that's
to
reduce
the
comp
time
from
480
to
240
hours.
G
G
The
next
one
is
sick
leave
and
you
had
given
us
a
proposal
on
sick
leave
that
we're
willing
to
agree
to
I
think
that's
to
increase
the
sick
leave
from
eight
to
ten
hours
and
that
would
increase
the
pay
at
retirement.
Is
that
correct
the
next
one,
the
Civil
Service
mou
I,
know
we've
agreed
to
some
language
in
there
already
I
think
the
important
part
for
us
is.
We
want
the
language
really
pertaining
to
the
promotional
process
for
lieutenants
and
sergeants
to
be
deleted.
E
Oh,
thank
you
Adam.
So,
regarding
item
number
three,
the
comp
time,
the
city's
proposal
when
we
left
last
left
here
discussing
it,
the
city
was
going
to
and
the
department
was
going
to
provide
some
insight
to
why
that
was
needed
where
the
issue
was
Etc.
Is
that
the
city's
intention
to
not
provide
that
information
at
this
time.
G
Yeah
I
honestly
I,
don't
recall
that
discussion
but
I
think
we
can.
We
can
talk
about
the
need
for
it.
I
don't
know
if
you're
comfortable
or
talking
about
it
sure.
F
So
the
the
issues
that
arise
with
having
multiple
officers
with
with
a
large
comp
time
bank
is
that
they
can
put
in
for
comp
time,
thereby
requiring
or
you
know,
requiring
that
the
city
pay
overtime
to
fill
shifts,
particularly
in
Patrol
when
those
hours
are
used
and
it
becomes
a
continual,
almost
revolving
door,
as
officers
are
hired
on
overtime
or
time
and
a
half
to
work,
those
shifts
they
can
bank
that
into
comp
time
and
then
take
time
off,
requiring
it
to
further
compound
itself.
F
So
we
find
ourselves
with
Staffing
shortages,
certainly
when
people
use
their
comp
time,
they
are
they're
entitled
to
that,
and
and
we
do
need
to
backfill
those
positions
when
we
could
drop
below
minimums,
but
having
on
such
a
large
Bank
available,
tends
to
increase
the
problems
for
management
and
for
the
city
and
filling
those
shifts
and
then
costing
extra
money.
E
To
some
degree,
yes,
thank
you
Chief.
So
previously
we
had
discussed
things
related
to
this.
For
example,
like
we
have
no
vacation
lead
protection,
so
vacation
leave
can
be
canceled
Within
no
guaranteed
time.
So
one
of
the
concerns
we
had
were
that
officers
often
use
comp
time
to
guarantee
vacation
leave.
E
E
So
you
know
we
understand
that
the
organization
is
substantially
short
of
personnel
and
we've
been,
you
know,
fighting
that
battle
for
a
few
years
right
and
that
contributes
to
this
problem
also,
but
you
know
this
is
a
big
benefit
that
the
union
has
and
for
us
to
convince
250
members,
we're
probably
going
to
need
to
see
some
kind
of
data
related
to
how
much
is
is
comp
time
really
costing
the
organization
in
overtime
related
to
minimums.
Additionally,
as
you
well
know,
minimums
is
kind
of
a
sliding
scale.
E
Sometimes
it's
followed,
and
sometimes
it's
not
so.
These
are
the
issues
that
we
really
have
related
to
comp
time
and
what
we
asked
for
originally
when
this
proposal
was
was
put
forward,
was
that
we
have
further
discussion
related
to
exactly
how
much
is
it
a
problem
for
the
Department?
How
much
money
is
it
costing
them
in
overtime?
E
Are
there
other
ways
to
mitigate
some
of
these
issues
by
having
guaranteed
vacations
having
shift
trade
process,
in
addition
to
understanding
that
some
of
these
shortfalls
are
going
to
be
a
little
bit
short
short
term,
because,
as
the
department
catches
up
with
its
full-time
employee
rate,
and
we
get
people
working
for
us,
you
know
they'll
be
less
overtime,
generating
less
comp
time.
Officers
are
not
going
to
be
burnt
burnt
down
mentally,
where
they
feel
like
they
need
to
take
additional
time
off
where
they're
running
ragged.
E
So
you
know
that
was
kind
of
where
we
left
it
originally,
and
we.
This
is
the
first
time
that
it's
come
back
back
around
so
I
think
that
we'll
probably
take
a
caucus
and
have
a
discussion
related
to
these
topics
and
see
where
we
go
from
there.
So
maybe
30
minutes
20
20
to
30
minutes
I
can
text
Adam
and
let
them
know.
A
That
sounds
good
with
that
we'll
adjourn
and
go
into
caucus
until
11
30.
E
We
have
dropped
a
counter
proposal
into
the
Union
proposals
from
the
last
proposal.
The
city
provided
we're
proposing
a
6.25
in
year,
one
and
a
6.25.
In
year,
two,
we
agreed
to
the
city's
proposal
of
five
plus
five
with
the
fto
pay.
E
We
reject
the
three
percent
for
detectives
and
ask
for
a
3.5
percent
when
it
comes
to
comp
time
we're
rejecting
it,
and
we
want
to
remind
the
department
in
the
city
that
the
Patrol
Captain
recently
did
a
study
in
a
survey
that
found
that
greater
than
50
percent
of
the
overtime
being
spent
and
backfilled
is
due
to
training
and
sick
leave,
not
comp
time
and
we're
going
to
give
up
our
greatest
benefit.
We
anticipate
from
the
department
and
the
city
more
evidentiary
value
of
what
they
really
need.
E
We
accept
the
city's
Viva
contribution,
allowing
members
to
start
contributing
to
themselves
and
keeping
the
current
contributions
the
way
they
are.
We
accept
the
sick
leave
that
we
proposed
number
eight.
E
We
reject
the
Civil
Service
deletion
of
language
related
to
Promotions
and
are
open
to
discussion
for
civil
service
rule
changes
as
previously
stated,
and
we
are
advocating
for
a
incentive
post
pay,
which
is
commiserate
with
commensurate
with
training
and
education,
ensuring
that
officers
are
of
quality
and
being
the
best
they
can
for
the
citizens
of
1.5,
2.75
and
3.75.
F
F
F
E
Well,
so
our
position
on
the
union
is
that
Sergeants
are
union
members
and
sergeants
are
the
ones
that
test
for
lieutenant
and
therefore
there
needs
to
be
a
fair,
competitive
process
that
is
controlled
with
some
regard.
So
our
big
concern
previously
is
that
whoever
is
leading
the
organization
not
including
yourself
but
in
the
future,
may
have
ill
intent
or
may
use
this
power
inappropriately
and
the
last
Chief.
E
We
have
reason
to
believe
that
that
was
his
intention
and
so
getting
rid
of
it
and
putting
in
policy
gives
us
no
protection,
because
policy
can
be
changed.
You
could
change
policy
next
week.
So
how
do
we
protect
our
members
and
make
a
fair
competitive
process?
I
think
that
it's
in
the
benefit
of
the
department,
as
well
as
the
membership,
to
have
a
fair
competitive
process
for
promotion
their
way,
thereby
making
the
best
candidates
rise
to
the
top
instead
of
having
something
that
isn't
fair
and
isn't
competitive.
A
Would
you
mind
providing
some
clarity
on
what
those
actual
adjustments
would
be.
E
So
we
have
worked
through
them
are
prior
to
showing
up
here
today
we
understand
the
intent
was
once
the
economic
side
was
done,
that
we
would
sit
down
and
kind
of
work
out
where
the
city
needed
to
be
in
the
department
and
where
we
needed
it
to
be.
So
we
do
have
some
of
that
language
available
that
we
could
discuss
I'm
guessing
I,
don't
know
what
time
we're
going
to
break
for
lunch,
but
we
could.
We
could
pull
that
back
up
and
we
could
go
through
that.
E
If
that's
really
what
we
need
to
do
at
this
time,
we
can
do
that,
but
what
we
really
want.
What
we're
asking
for
is
that
when
you
test
first
sergeant,
there's
a
fair
competitive
process
and
when
you
test
for
lieutenant
there's
a
fair
competitive
process,
how
that
specifically
looks
is
open
right,
but
what
we?
What
we
fear
is
that
if
it's
put
into
policy,
then
that
can
just
be
changed.
That'll
win,
depending
on
leadership
right.
E
So
if
it's
in
the
contract,
then
we're
going
to
have
to
negotiate
it,
and
so
it's
housed
in
the
contract
now,
and
we
just
want
to
make
it
the
best
for
the
department
and
our
members,
which
we
believe
in
turn,
will
make
it
the
best
for
the
citizens.
E
I
mean
our
suggestion
would
be
we
break
for
launch
that
way.
We
can
pull
up
our
documents
and
have
them
ready
to
go
for
expedited
conversations
and
then
I'll
give
the
city
time
to
look
at
the
counter
proposal.
E
Which
we
may
be
put
in
a
little
bit
of
the
car
before
the
horse,
I
mean
I.
Think
the
city
requested
that
we
work
through
the
economic
packages
first.
But
if
we
need
to
switch
that
direction.
A
We
can
say
with
the
economic
proposals,
I
think
how
we
got
into
this
conversation.
Is
it's
unclear
from
this
document?
If
you
expected
the
city
to
reopen
discussions
about
the
Civil
Service
rule
or
that
you
all
were
preparing
to
do
so,
it
sounds
like
you're
preparing
to
do
so
after
we
have
more
conversations
about
economic
proposals.
Is
that
correct,
yeah.
E
A
How
long
do
you
Chief
did
you
need
something
just.
E
A
A
Right
so
we'll
consider
this
meeting
adjourned
until
12
30..
Thank
you
welcome
back
everybody.
This
is
the
continuation
of
the
contract,
negotiation
between
the
city
of
Boise
and
the
Boise
Police
Union.
With
that
I'll
hand
it
over
to
Adam.
G
Okay,
so
we
talked
about
your
package
proposal
and
I
guess
we
just
want
to
start
by
pointing
out
that
we're
talking
about
the
city's
pay
structure
versus
the
Union's
pay
structure
and,
and
that
alone
there's
a
difference
in
about
two
million
dollars
between
using
our
pay
structure
versus
using
your
pay
structure,
and
so
we're
going
to
give
you
another
package
proposal
and
we're
continuing
to
propose
to
use
our
pay
structure.
G
If
you
want
to
use
the
Union's
pay
structure,
then
the
base
wages
would
need
to
come
down
to
offset
that,
but
so
I
think
this
is
going
to
load
up
our
proposal.
The
file's
there
now,
okay.
G
E
G
And
the
I
guess
the
other
change
was
we're
withdrawing
our
comp
time
proposal
here.
So
we'll
stick
with
the
480
and
our
proposal
was
240..
G
Parties
were
also
in
agreement
on
the
HRA,
Viva
and
I
think
on
the
sick
leave
as
well
your
sick
leave
proposal.
The
Civil
Service
mou
week
are
continuing
to
propose
to
delete
the
promotional
process,
language
for
the
lieutenants
and
sergeants
and
I.
Think
the
chief
can
speak
more
about
that
and
just
to
make
it
clear
we're
continuing
to
propose
our
original
proposal
as
to
where
that
we
believe
the
language
in
the
Civil
Service
mlu
should
go,
but
we
can
have
further
discussions
about
that.
E
Okay,
so
I
have
a
couple
quick
questions
on
the
pay
structure,
and
maybe
this
is
more
directed
towards
Biff,
so,
basically
stretching
it
out
from
13
years
to
16
years
is
really
where
the
difference
is
because
ours
was
one
through
nine
eleven
and
thirteen
and
I
believe
yours
was
one
through.
The
cities
was
one
through
nine,
eleven
thirteen
and
then
16..
Is
that
correct.
C
Correct
the
episode
of
the
basic
structure
is
correct
and
really
where
the
the
cost
differential
comes
in.
You
know,
if
you
look
at
where
the
current
imagine
the
current
structure,
where
employees
get
placed
so
we're
effectively
taking
what
would
be
a
20-year
pay
rate
and
we're
pushing
it
up
to
13
years,
so
you're
pushing
everybody
through
that
whole
that
whole
structure
much
more
quickly
and
you're
growing
those
wages.
On
top
of
that,
so
that's
where
that
the
cost
of
the
Union's
proposal
is
significantly
higher
in
the
city's
iteration.
C
You
know
we
had
proposed
grandfathering
the
20-year
corporals.
So
so
you
know
we're
not
growing
people
up
to
that
maximum
rate
that
they
otherwise
would
have
been
eligible
for,
but
they
cap
out
sooner
in
the
pay
structure.
So
those
are
things
that
are
driving
the
cost
difference
between
the
two.
So.
C
Well
and
if
you
think
back
to
I
think
it
was
the
first
day
at
the
table.
The
motive
behind
that
structure
was
to
create
space
for
a
supervisory
position
beneath
the
Sergeants
and
and
so
even
though
you
remember
the
first,
the
first
proposals
that
were
exchanged
both
directions.
There
was
that
place,
and
so
our
structure
is
still
trying.
You
know
whether
it's
this
negotiation
or
a
future
negotiation
we're
still
trying
to
hold
that
space
so
that
we
can
successfully
recruit
for
and
fill
those
supervisory
roles.
E
Thank
you.
We
also
want
to
note
that,
on
the
original
part
of
our
reason
for
compressing,
it
was
to
get
in
compliance
with
a
modern
day
law
enforcement,
which
most
places
are
between
9
and
12
years
of
service
or
where
that
falls,
and
so
our
Hope
was
to
compress
that
to
get
more
Equity
with
other
agencies
and
do
what
normal
industry
standard
standard
is.
E
So
we
will
we'll
have
to
give
that
some
consideration.
I
can
I
can
tell
you
outright
we're
not
interested
in
lowering
the
cap.
We
can
either
lower
that
bar,
but
we're
not
going
to
remove
a
pay
schedule
from
future
earners.
So
if
it's
something
that
we
need
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
on
or
potentially
leave
the
original
schedule,
the
way
it
is,
then
that
may
be
something
we
have
to
we
look
to
so
we
understand
that
it
does
accelerate
it.
E
There
is
additional
costs
related
to
that
and
we
figure
we
based
on
our
position.
E
Those
figures
compensate
for
that
in
some
regard,
and
so
we
may,
we
may
have
to
look
at
alternate
ways,
but
you
know
we
are
here
representing
the
body
and
we're
pushing
what
their
direction
is,
and
so
we
may
have
to
go
back
to
the
table
with
them
and
figure
out
what
is
the
most
important,
because
what
we've
been
sent
here
with
is
that's
the
most
important
we've
been
sitting
here
with
some
minimum
standards,
and
so
you
know
we
work
for
them,
so
we'll
have
to
figure
figure
that
out
question.
F
In
relation
to
that,
if
if
we
are
indeed
looking
at
industry
standards
in
that
regard
and
we're
talking
about
making
adjustments
in
the
pay
scale,
are
we
also
willing
to
look
at
industry
standards
and
what
is
going
on
across
the
country
related
to
comp
time
caps
being
480
is
way
higher
than
virtually
any
agency
I've
found
in
the
country?
Well,.
E
We
we
understand
that
480
is
the
maximum
allowed
by
law
and
we
understand
that's
a
substantial
benefit
to
our
membership.
We've
also
continuously
sat
at
the
table
that
we're
willing
to
look
at
that
and
we're
willing
to
have
conversations
about
that.
We
didn't
just
say
it
wasn't
on
the
table
anymore.
We
didn't
reject
it
and
say:
that's
that's
off
the
table,
so
we
we
are
open
to
discussions,
but
you
know
we
also
need
information,
because
I
have
to
convince
250
people
that
there's
a
legitimate
reason
and
here's
the
benefit
of
doing
so.
E
G
G
F
So
if
my
understanding
is
correct,
I
was
not
here
at
the
time,
but
having
reviewed
this,
they
were
put
into
basically
three
different
buckets,
the
green
being.
We
would
propose
incorporating
into
the
CLA
the
yellow
being
adding
those
in
yellow
to
Department
policy
and
then
removing
those
in
Red.
So
that
would
be
our
ultimate
goal
from
the
city's
perspective.
To
do
this,
with
the
different
things
in
the
current
mou
for
Civil
Service
rules.
G
F
G
E
Okay,
well,
we
reject
that
offer.
The
things
that
are
asked
to
be
put
over
to
policy
are
not
amenable
to
the
union.
Membership.
F
And
as
far
as
it
relates
to
the
promotional
processes,
I
think
there
is
certainly
room
to
talk
about
having
the
union
involved
in
those
processes.
We
would
potentially
meet
and
confer
on
those
promotional
processes
and
have
the
union
involved.
E
The
problem
with
that
is
Chief,
and
this
excludes
you,
because
you
were
not
part
of
this
and
so
do
not
be
offended
that
we
say
this
meet
and
confer
under
some
previous
Chiefs
where
meet
and
tell,
and
then
it
turned
into
tell
so
many
a
time.
The
last
Administration,
including
the
deputy
chief,
have
said:
if
it's
not
in
the
CLA,
we
can
do
what
we
want.
E
So
what
assurances
do
we
have
and
what
assurances
do
my
membership
have
that
when
you
leave-
and
somebody
else
takes
your
spot,
that
we're
going
to
be
guaranteed
that
it's
not
going
to
be
it's
not
in
there
I
can
do
what
I
want.
G
I
yeah
I
think
it
goes
back
to
the
this
from
the
city's
perspective.
Many
of
these
items
are
management
rights.
They
they
aren't
something,
that's
typically
bargained
with
a
union
or
inserted
into
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
and
that's
that's
where
our
suggestions
as
to
where
they
go.
G
If
it's
something
that
traditionally
belongs
in
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
that's
why
we've
got
those
in
green
and
if
it's
not
that's,
why
we
put
it
in
yellow
and
and
red
typically
has
always
been
a
management
right
and
that's
why
we
propose
to
to
remove
those
all
together.
E
Well,
that's
understandable,
Adam
and
I
appreciate
that,
but
nobody
sitting
on
this
side
of
the
table
was
here
when
that
process
was
done.
It
was
a
mutually
agreed
upon
process
by
the
city
at
the
time
and
that's
the
process
we
have.
In
fact
previously,
the
union
had
to
had
tried
to
remove
them,
and
the
department
in
the
city
fought
us
on
that.
E
So
you
know
fast
forward
to
today
whether
they're
a
management
right
or
not,
they're
part
of
an
mou,
that's
part
of
the
contract,
and
so
now
they
have
to
be
dealt
with.
D
And
I'll,
just
I'll
just
mention
Adam
I'm,
not
disagreeing
that
it's
not
in
most
contracts.
However
I
guess
the
question
would
be
how
many
of
those
states
that
have
contracts
that
this
is
not
in
have
Bill
of
Rights
or
officer
rights
in
law
somewhere
else,
because
Idaho
does
not
have
that
I
know,
California
does
I
believe
Oregon
does
as
well.
E
So
I
think,
if
the
position
is
that
the
city
is
unwilling
to
go
through
those,
then
we're
basically
going
to
have
to
go
back
to
the
membership
and
see
where
they
want.
But
I
can
tell
you
that
it
was
a
very
high
priority
on
their
list
of
things
for
these
negotiations.
E
So
we're
we're
going
to
have
to
go
back
to
the
table
with
our
membership
and
see
how
important
it
is
to
them,
given
the
city's
proposal
and
or
the
city's
positions
on
things,
so
I
guess
at
this
point
in
time,
without
a
membership,
Direction
I
don't
feel
like
we,
because
the
direction
is
so
far.
Apart
from
what
the
membership
sent
us
here
related
to
Civil
Service
rules
that
perhaps
we'll
have
a
meeting
and
revisit
that
with
them
and
see
how
much
of
a
priority
it
is
for
them.
F
Class
one
clarifying
question
regarding
this:
one
small
part
of
the
Civil
Service
rules
related
to
Promotions.
Was
there
any
differentiation
between
the
sergeant
promotional
process
and
the
lieutenant
promotional
process
in
the
eyes
of
the
Union
body?
In
other
words,
do
they
care
more
about
the
sergeant
process
than
they
do
about
the
lieutenant
process?
Or
is
it
all
one
package.
E
It's
all
one
package,
because
having
a
fair
process
for
Sergeants,
who
are
members
to
be
able
to
promote,
is
an
important
protection
that
they
feel
they
need,
as
well
as
officer
to
Sergeant
level.
E
E
E
E
I
mean
ultimately
we're
kind
of
stuck
here
on
the
the
pay
and
the
pay
scale,
and
I
think
that
if
the
city
is
unwilling
to
reduce
the
pay
scale,
any
further
than
16
years
I
mean
we
have
come
up.
E
We
originally
started
with
I
think
11,
and
then
we
went
to
12
and
then
we've
gone
to
13.,
we'll
have
to
go
back
to
the
membership
and
get
some
better
Direction
on
that
part
of
the
problem
is:
is
the
removal
of
the
top
end
scale
preventing
people
from
reaching
a
certain
ceiling
and
condensement?
So
if
we
need
to
abandon
the
condensed
idea,
that'll
have
to
be
on
the
union
membership
to
decide
and
we'll
we'll
talk
to
them
about
the
Civil
Service
rules
and
we'll
have
to
go
from
there.
E
That's
what
I
I
I'm
sorry,
maybe
I'll
restate
it.
We
need
to
go
back
to
the
membership
if
we're
going
to
discuss,
Civil,
Service
rules
and
condensing
of
the
scale.
B
E
I
mean
I
would
like
to
set
a
meeting
for
next
week.
I,
don't
know
what
people's
schedules
are
like
we,
you
know
I,
guess
that
depends
on
what
people's
schedules
are
like.
So
we
have
to
set
a
meeting
time
for
that.
I,
don't
know
that.
Is
there
any
other
issues
that
the
city
would
like
to
try
to
hammer
out
before
we.
F
F
G
E
I
mean
the
union
has
no
opposition
to
you
meeting
virtually
I,
don't
know
what
the
city's
position
is.
A
G
B
B
A
A
Would
it
be
okay,
I'm,
just
guessing
the
use
of
this
room
if
we
started
at
10
o'clock
on
the
first.
A
Right
any
other
business
for
today,
all
right
with
that
we
stand
adjourned
until
December
1st
thanks
everyone.