►
From YouTube: Police CLA Negotiations - Day 7
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
meeting
is
the
continuation
of
the
contract.
Labor
negotiations
between
the
city
and
the
police,
Union
I'll
remind
everybody
to
use
their
microphones
during
this
meeting
and
if
we
could
go
around
and
do
introductions
before
we
proceed.
I'm
Courtney,
Washburn
I'm,
the
chief
of
staff
for
the
city
of
Boise.
A
Thanks
everybody,
so
just
a
housekeeping
item.
D.C
Brooks
needs
to
lead
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
at
the
state
house
today,
so
he
will
be
absent
somewhere
between
9
45
and
10
15ish.
If
we
are
in
a
discussion
that
we
feel
we
need
him
for
I
ask
for
your
flexibility
to
accommodate
a
break
during
that
time.
If,
if
we
don't
need
him,
of
course,
we
need
him,
but
if
we
don't
need
him
at
that
exact
moment,
we
can
proceed.
A
So
the
city's
plan
today
is
to
address
the
questions
the
union
had
from
the
last
meeting
I
believe
we
had
a
list
I
believe
the
plan
was
for
you
all
to
meet
with
Biff
and
the
interim
I.
Don't
believe
that
happened.
D
B
A
D
C
Okay,
great
so
I've
attempted
to
lay
this
out
really
cleanly
so
question.
One
answer
one
question
two
answer:
two
I'll
walk
through
them.
First,
you
had
asked
how
many
positions
the
city
had
considered
in
our
costing
exercises.
The
answer
is
311.,
so
all
of
the
FTE
associated
with
the
Union
question
two
which
positions
qualify
for
different
incentive
pays.
So
this
answer
refers
to
that
Excel
spreadsheet.
C
That
I
also
dropped
in
the
shared
folder,
and
so,
if
we
want
to
take
a
moment
and
look
at
that,
you're
welcome
to
to
open
that
up.
C
And
so
it
it
lays
out
both
the
specialty
team
or
the
the
incentive
pay
category,
the
employee.
That
was
there
at
the
time
that
we
pulled
the
data
and
then
also
the
associated
position.
C
C
C
And
you
asked
what
was
the
vacancy
rate
Factor
for
police
in
fiscal
year
23?
The
answer
was
3.3
percent
and
that's
based
on
historical
vacancy
rates,
and
then
you
know
the
budget
office
has
been
reluctant
to
swing
those
vacancy
rates
too
aggressively.
C
Given
the
pandemic
and,
given
you
know
the
unconventional
times
we're
in
so
we've
held
pretty
steady
at
that
around
that
rate
for
the
last
few
budget
builds
okay
question
four
last
negotiation:
the
union
brought
forward
some
information
about
proportion
of
of
City
budget
Police
Department
budget,
as
as
it
pertains
to
other
budgets
in
the
general
fund,
and
the
question
was
you
know:
could
somebody
in
finance
please
review
the
data
and
help
make
sure
that
we
see
what
we're
going
to
see?
C
What
we're
think
we're
seeing
and
the
slides
that
had
been
pulled
from
the
budget
documents
as
near
as
I,
could
tell
all
related
to
the
general
fund
and
all
related
to
the
proportion
of
police
spend
from
the
general
fund
budget
resources
in
and
expenditures
out
in
your
final
slide
and
I'm,
going
to
key
in
on
the
data
that
you
had
on
your
final
slide
in
that
section,
that
was
the
data
from
fiscal
year,
16
to
fiscal
you're,
21.,
I
combed
through
it
and
validated
that
all
of
those
numbers
were
representative
of
actual
revenues
in
and
expenditures
made,
so
budget
versus
actual
dollars,
and
so
budgets
can
swing
from
year
to
year,
based
on
parameters
and
assumptions,
etc,
etc.
C
C
D
Perfect
now,
if
would
this
include,
so
these
are
actual
end
of
year,
where
we
ended
up
spending
because
I
know
the
last
year
or
two
we've
returned
money
to
the
city,
so
this
would
include
the
money
that
came
back
to
the
city
at
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year
from
the
police
budget.
That's
correct,
okay,.
C
Yeah
and
I
know
I
know
in
the
current
fiscal
year,
I
mean
that
that
pattern
has
continued.
You
know,
we've
been
understaffed,
there's
budget
Authority
that
has
returned
to
the
bottom
line,
so
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
as
the
year
plays
out
what
what
the
data
point
is
for
fiscal
year.
22.
C
A
Thanks
Biff
I
just
want
to
State
the
obvious,
which
is
it's
not
the
city's
intention
to
put
the
department
in
a
position
to
return
money
every
year,
I
think
it's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city
and
the
union
to
work
to
ensure
that
money
gets
spent
in
the
police
department.
That
is
the
intention
when
we
allocate
the
budget
Authority
I
think
the
challenge
is
our
vacancy
rate.
As
we've
discussed
before
foreign.
B
B
So
it
looks
like
people
are
getting
into
the
document.
I
wanted
to
spend
some
time
to
talk
through
some
of
the
proposed
structure
changes
so
I
think
we
have
been
relatively
aligned.
It
just
seems
worthwhile
spending
a
little
bit
more
time
talking
through
the
details.
So
if
we
go
to
that
first
through
that
second
slide,
this
is
just
an
overview
of
the
police
officer.
Pay
plan
that
we
are
proposing
so
on
the
left
is
each
step.
B
The
second
column
is
time
and
grade
so
right
now,
I
think
we
have
talked
quite
a
bit
about
how
our
current
pay
structure
is
a
little
unique.
It's
not
very
smooth,
and
it
is
not
very
easy
to
explain
to
Future
members
or
the
public,
so
we
are
really
trying
to
bring
a
more
transparent
and
easier
to
understand
pay
plan
forward.
B
So
we
would
like
to
move
to
a
step
or
time
and
grade
model.
So
looking
through
steps
a
through
I,
we
are
proposing
that
it
be
a
12-month
step
so
one
year,
so
you
would
stay
in
each
of
these
steps.
For
one
year
for
steps
J
and
K,
we
are
proposing
a
24-month
step.
So
after
two
years
and
then
step
L
would
be
after
36
months,
so
a
three
year
step.
The
next
column
is
crosswalking.
B
B
So
you
can
see
where
a
brand
new
police
officer-
that's
the
NPO
as
well
as
like
an
np07,
would
be
at
that
step.
H
all
the
way
up
to
an
npo15.
B
The
final
column
is
walking
through
sort
of
the
employee.
Experience
of
this
pay
plan
and
I
want
to
call
out
that
this
is
specific
to
a
brand
new
officer.
So
we
are
not
talking
about
laterals
right
now,
so
looking
at
that
far
column,
this
would
be
explaining
when
the
increase
would
occur
for
that
individual,
so
step
a
which
is
similar
to
the
NPO.
That
would
be
a
brand
new
probationary
officer,
step
B.
They
would
move
into
that
step
after
the
completion
of
their
first
year.
B
B
Going
to
slide
three
I
wanted
to
address
how
we
would
plan
to
recognize
lateral
officers
just
because
I
think
the
last
time
we
were
all
at
the
table.
There
was
some
confusion,
so
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
providing
a
similar
experience
for
lateral
officers,
and
the
benefit
of
moving
to
the
pay
structure
that
was
just
presented
is
that
it
allows
us
to
have
a
single
pay
plan,
as
opposed
to
our
six
current
structures
that
we
have
right
now.
So
we
would
plan
to
crosswalk
lateral
officers
into
our
proposed
pay
plan.
B
Looking
at
just
three
examples.
So,
for
example,
if
we
had
a
lateral
officer
that
started
in
July
of
2022
at
the
time
that
we
would
be
looking
to
implement
this
contract
on
October
1st,
they
would
not
have
a
complete
a
full
year
of
service.
Yet
if
they
were
brought
in
at
the
lpo
step,
they
would
still
be
at
that
lpo
step.
But
that
corresponds
to
step
C
on
our
proposed
pay
plan
for
and
off
a
lateral
officer
brought
in
in
March
of
2020.
B
B
Similarly,
somebody
that
was
hired
in
July
of
2018,
they
have
four
years
of
service.
If
they
were
brought
in
at
the
lpo
step,
they
would
currently
be
at
the
lpo2,
but
we
would
bring
them
in
at
step,
F
and
so
from
there.
It
would
just
be
recognizing
their
time
and
grade
already
and
trying
to
crosswalk
that
to
the
pay
plan.
D
Just
so
just
backing
up
to
page
two,
just
so
I
can
understand
so
for
the
crosswalk,
the
np05
to
step
F,
yes,
that
that's
not
that's
not
going
backwards
at
all!
It's
not
going
down!
It's
only
going
forward
correct.
C
And
just
one
more
comment,
one
reason
we
wanted
to
pause
and
and
think
through
this
with
you
and
make
sure
there
were
no
questions
here.
You
know
in
your
presentation
last
negotiation.
You
know
you
had
highlighted
some
slides
clearly
with
the
understanding
that
people
might
be
going
backwards
and-
and
we
wanted
to
clearly
reflect
back
to
you-
that's
not
that's,
not
the
intention.
We
we
intend
to
bring
everybody
forward.
C
B
So
then,
looking
at
slide
four,
this
would
be
looking
at
the
sergeant
play
plan,
so
we
would
continue
to
pull
them
out
onto
their
own
separate
pay
plan.
We
are
proposing
a
similar
step
number
so
having
five
steps
numbered
a
through
e.
We
are
proposing
that
it'd
be
24
months
as
each
step
increase
so
every
two
years,
and
then
we've
cross-walked
our
current
job
titles
that
we
have
right
now
and
that
are
represented
on
that
Sergeant
pay
plan
for
five
years,
seven
year,
ten
year,
15-year
and
20
year,
and
so
we'll
come
back
to
those.
B
Right
now
that
pay
plan
is
looking
at
times
of
service.
So
right
now,
if
you
were
a
police
officer
promoting
up
to
a
sergeant,
we
would
look
at
your
years
of
service
and
then
put
you
in
the
corresponding
step
Our
intention.
So
we
would
do
that
when
we
implement
this
pay
plan
going
forward.
B
Foreign,
this
next
slide.
So
it's
we
wanted
to
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
of
just
what
police
Union
increases
have
looked
like
compared
to
the
general
employees
as
well
as
crosswalking
that
to
the
cpiu.
So
we
have
calendar
years
2018
through
2020.
B
We
have
what
was
negotiated
in
the
Police
contract
compared
to
what
general
employees
were
receiving.
So
looking
at
2018,
the
contract
included
a
4.5
increase.
General
employees
were
budgeted
at
a
three
percent
increase
which
was
merit-based,
so
we
did
not
guarantee
a
three
percent
increase
for
any
individual
and
then
the
final
column
is
looking
at
the
cpiu
over
that
same
time
period.
So
that
would
be
looking
at
October
or
September
the
previous
year
to
October
of
2018..
B
B
This
first
year
for
our
general
employees,
we
did
a
5.9
across
the
board
increase
and
we
provided
that
increase
in
July
of
20
22
and
then
I'm
looking
at
the
cpiu
and
I,
do
want
to
call
out
that
that's
not
a
full
year
so
right
now,
that
only
represents
data
that
is
available
between
October
of
2021
through
July
of
2022,
just
because
it
takes
some
time
for
that
data
to
be
published.
D
B
That
is
just
the
data
that
I
have
I'm
happy
to
go
and
look
at
previous
years.
I
can't
say
generally
at
least
the
last
four
years
before
2018
I
believe
it
was
budgeted
at
three
percent
for
General
employees,
but
I
don't
have
the
contract
numbers
in
front
of
me.
D
Okay,
yeah
because
I
know
just
prior
to
2018,
I,
don't
know
the
exact
years,
but
I
know
there
was
two
or
three
years
at
zero
percent,
I
believe
and
then
several
one
one
and
a
half
type
percent,
so
I
didn't
know
why
specifically
18
was
chosen
as
the
as
the
start
date.
That's
when
that.
D
D
Between
between
18
to
probably
five
more,
if
you
had
an
additional
five
years
back,
I
think
it
would
show
some
of
that.
Okay,
so.
B
So
then,
going
to
slide
six.
This
is
our
counter
proposal
for
wages,
so
we
are
looking
at
a
5.6
in
year,
one
and
a
4.5
in
year
two.
So
this
is
to
your
comments
of
trying
to
keep
employees
whole
past.
B
B
We
are
looking
if
we
provided
the
5.6
and
the
4.5
to
our
current
structure.
That
is
what
is
represented
in
those
two
columns
for
current
structure
and
then
the
next
two
columns
are
for
our
proposed
structure.
So
that's
looking
again
starting
at
a
providing
those
consistent
and
regular
step
increases,
and
then
the
differential
is
looking
at
from
our
proposed
structure.
B
How
does
it
compare
dollar
for
dollar
to
the
current
structure,
so
you'll
see
that
all
of
those
columns
are
in
green
or
at
least
budget
neutral,
so
saying
that
they
would
get
the
full
5.6?
And
so
this
is
where
it
is
difficult
for
us
to
say
a
single
percentage
amount
for
year,
one
just
because
of
the
structural
changes.
So
we
tried
to
guarantee
that
it
would
be
at
least
5.6,
but
there
are
some
steps
that
will
be
slightly
higher.
B
And
then
again
with
this
structure,
so
we,
since
our
last
proposal,
we
have
added
two
steps
so
that
step
K
and
step
l,
which
sort
of
keeps
track
with
the
NPO
15
Our
intention
for
the
NPO
20
would
be
to
grandfather
anybody.
That's
currently
in
that
step,
give
them
the
5.6
and
the
4.5,
but
we
would
not
be
continuing
the
pay
plan
to
that
step
as
people
leave
the
organization.
D
And
again,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding.
So
the
way
that
this
looks
is
you
would
top
out
moving
forward,
not
including
the
grandfather
you
top
out
at
15
years
at
less
than
we're
currently
topping
out,
at
so
say,
a
14-year
officer.
D
If
we
kept
just
our
same
contract
currently
they
would
end
up
going
to
49-ish
at
20..
Under
this
pay
plan,
they
they
wouldn't
go
the
additional
beyond.
That
is
that.
B
Correct
so
we
would
recognize
their
step
increases
up
to
year.
15..
The
benefit
of
this
proposal
is
that
they
are
getting
increases
more
frequently.
So
from
and
I
want
to
clarify
at
the
step
L
from
there,
it
would
just
be
the
negotiated
increases,
so
they
would
continue
to
get
the
pay
plan
changes
over
time
through
future
contract
negotiations,
but
we
would
that
would
be
the
last
step,
and
so
the
benefit
is
looking
at
steps.
D
and
e.
B
C
You
already
touched
on
this
point,
but
I
mean
just
to
to
make
sure
it's
clear.
You
know
so
we've
in
the
third
column,
we've
really
tried
to
look
at
if
we
kept
the
current
pay
rates
and
we
grew
them
by
5.6
percent.
What
would
they
be
and
then
The
Proposal
with
the
new
steps?
C
We've
we've
tried
to
meet
or
beat
on
what
those
pay
rates
would
be
for
each
of
those
employee
groupings,
so
so,
once
again
to
Christine's
point
we're
we're
calling
it
a
5.6
percent
growth,
but
there
are
some
employees
that
would
would
experience
More,
Than,
A,
5.6
gross,
and
so
just
don't
want
to
lose
that
point.
Thank
you.
B
And
then
this
last
slide
is
a
crosswalk
to
the
sergeant
pay
plan.
So
again
we
are
focusing
on
a
24-month
time
and
grade.
These
are
where
our
our
current
steps
crosswalk
to
the
current
pay
plan
and
then,
similarly,
if
we
were
to
provide
the
5.6
and
4.5
under
our
current
structure
compared
to
our
proposal
and
what
the
dollar
differential
is
at
each
of
those
steps.
C
C
B
So
I
do
want
to
call
out,
as
Biff
is
pulling
up
that
number.
If
so,
this
is
similar
to
our
last
proposal
for
this
structure
and
it
seemed
to
be
that
there
were
concerns
around
the
unions
having
those
top
steps
and
where
we're
capping
out.
So
we
have
added
those
steps,
and
that
is
primarily
where
we're
seeing
such
an
increase
in
the
budget
is
through
the
earning
potential
of
a
member.
C
C
Okay,
let
me
give
you
these
these
numbers,
so
this
is
in
the
questica
salary
module,
the
position-based
budget.
So
when
we
built
the
fiscal
year
23
budget-
and
we
projected
that
contract
Personnel,
that
portion
would
cost
the
city
roughly
43.1
million
and
the
offer
that
we're
bringing
forward
today
is
43.8.
So
and
then
that's
where
that
700
000
discrepancy
comes
in.
C
You
did
on
the
first
one
yeah
so
percentage
so
so
this
might
be
a
good
time
and
I'll
look
to
Adam.
Adam
is
now
a
good
time
to
talk
about
the
lateral
placement
question
that
we
had
for
them,
or
do
we
want
to
table
that
for
later.
C
Okay
yep,
so
we
had
a
question
about
you
know
your
proposal
that
you
brought
forward
and,
let's
pull
it
up.
Just
so
I
can
make
sure
I
articulate
the
question
properly.
A
Bev,
can
you
just
make
sure
you
tell
us
where
you're
going
absolutely.
C
Which
folder
yeah
yeah
we're
gonna
go
to
the
the
folder
from
last
last
negotiation
in
the
union
proposals,
September
6,
2022.
C
C
The
wage
counter
proposal
so
as
and
the
reason
that
this
came
up
as
a
question
is
we,
the
the
analytics
team
interpreted
it
one
way
and
when
we
brought
the
number
back
to
the
broader
team,
DC
Brook
said
I
didn't
interpret
it.
That
way,
which
raised
the
question
all
right
so
based
on
the
way
that
the
data
lines
out
on
slide.
C
Two,
we
assumed
that
you,
you
would
Place
lateral
officers
that
are
today
in
the
lpo,
zero
lpo3
lpo,
five,
seven
at
the
steps
that
are
represented
on
your
chart
in
slide,
two
meaning
you
would
bring
them
forward
to
those
places
for
the
the
whole
current
population,
correct
versus
another
alternative
interpretation
would
be
starting
after
the
contract
goes
into
effect.
We
would
bring
new
lateral
officers
and
and
effectively
let
let
the
crosswalk
yeah.
C
Yeah,
so
that's
your
intention
walked
over
yes,
okay,
so
with
that
intention
or
with
that
number,
if
my
internet
will
can
will
work
with
me
here,.
C
C
C
So
I'm
going
to
repeat
the
numbers
I
said
before
and
give
you
the
new
number.
So
when
we
built
the
fiscal
year
23
budget,
we
estimated
that
in
fiscal
year
23
the
the
salary
module
portion
of
the
Police
contract
would
cost
43.1
million
the
offer
we're
putting
on
the
table
moves
that
North
by
700
000
to
40.
C
E
C
Okay,
yeah
and
the
big
difference.
We
actually
did
a
comparison
of
placement
in
our
model
versus
placement
in
yours
and
there's
pretty
significant
movement
based
on
that
LPL
placement
assumption.
You
know
right,
it's
really
moving
a
lot
of
people
deeper
into
those.
So
it's
it's
one
part
the
pay
rates
that
you
propose
were
higher.
It's
another
part,
so
many
people
are
getting
so
much
deeper
and
and
that's
what's
that's,
what's
driving
that
two
million
dollar
discrepancy.
E
D
And
just
for
clarification,
part
of
the
reason
we're
crosswalking
them.
The
way
that
we
did
was
that
there
was
a
number
of
officers
brought
in
by
Chief
Lee
at
a
much
higher
rate
than
officers
prior
to
them,
and
so
our
proposal
would
fix
that
issue,
because
right
now,
there's
there's
an
inequity
where
officers
were
brought
in
after
their
training
officers,
for
example,
and
there's
some
that
are
making
at
or
maybe
even
less
than,
the
new
guy
that
they're
training.
So
so
we're
trying
the
reason.
D
Our
proposal
shows
that
crosswalk
and
it
does
advance
several
forward-
is
to
try
to
fix
the
the
inadequacy
that
occurred
when
those
officers
were
brought
in
Kyle.
D
D
So
yeah
that,
hopefully,
that
kind
of
clarifies
why
we
were
doing
what
we
were
doing
as
well.
G
Can
I
just
make
a
comment
on
the
lateral
officer
issue
because,
from
my
my
experience
we
I
never
see
contracts
where
there's
a
separate
salary
scale
for
lateral
officers.
They
they.
F
G
In
at
whatever
the
employer
thinks
they
ought
to
come
in
at
and
then
they
just
progress
like
everyone
else
in
that
category,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
if
you
know
a
lateral
officer,
if
the
city
makes
them
an
offer
to
come
in
at
a
certain
rate,
if
they
don't
like
it,
they
don't
have
to
come
or
they
can
try
to
negotiate
a
higher
rate
at
that
time.
D
And
I
think
Adam
the
what
we're
trying
to
prevent
is
just
exactly
what
you're
describing
where
they
can
be
brought
in
at
whatever
they
want,
and
then
we
have
this
this
unfair
or
unequal
issue
where
we
have
some
that
that
the
chief
or
the
administration
deem
as
hey,
you
came
from
a
whatever
agency,
so
you're
much
more
valuable
than
someone
else,
so
that
that's
that's
what
we're
trying
to
to
avoid,
because
it's
it's
caused
a
number
of
headaches
within
the
membership
and
rightfully
so
members
very
frustrated
that
they've
been
here.
D
Four
years
came
from
whatever
agency,
good
agencies
and
they
didn't
get
the
credit,
but
now
with
the
new
Chief,
other
people
are,
and
so
it
it
just
creates
this
unbalance
that
we're,
if
we
can
balance
that
and
make
it
so
you
come
in
as
a
lateral
at
X,
and
this
is
how
you
proceed
as
a
lateral,
quite
frankly,
that's
more
transparent
instead
of
a
kind
of
hiding
numbers
or
hey
I'm,
bringing
in
my
friend
or
whatever,
and
then
on
top
of
it.
A
Kyle,
do
you
know
how
this
was
handled
with
past
administrations
like
I?
Is
this
is
the
challenge
with
laterals
new,
or
do
you
have
any
background
information
on
how
they
were
incorporated
into
the
department
so.
D
I
think
and
I
may
not
be
100
accurate
on
this,
but
I
think
this
is
why
our
pay
structure
is
so
got
three
or
four
of
them
is
because
of
this
and
I
think
that's,
what's
caused
different
pay
structures
in
trying
to
do
that,
but
it's
my
understanding
that
in
the
past,
to
my
knowledge,
there
hasn't
been
discretion
used
by
the
chief,
even
though
they
had
the
Chiefs
had
that
authority
to
bring
people
into
different
rates.
They've
all
been
brought
in.
A
So
just
a
quick
check
in
on
how
we
proceed
with
the
rest
of
the
day.
The
the
city
is
happy
to
take
a
break
to
ensure
I.
Think
our
first
goal
today
is
make
sure
we
have
all
your
questions
answered
after
you
go
through
this
information
and
then,
if
you
have
any
items,
understanding
Denning
Carter
is
in
here
to
discuss
that's
fine,
but
why
I
would
suggest
we
take
a
break
also
to
help
DC
Brooks
go,
say
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance.
A
If
10
30
works
for
you
all
and
if
you
would
just
do
us
a
favor
and
keep
a
running
list
of
any
questions
that
come
up
so
that
we
can
figure
out
if
we
can
address
those
today
or
if
we
need
to
come
back.
Yes
in
order
to
do
that,.
D
That'd
be
great
one
question
I
we
do
have
even
before
we
break
and
we're
taking
a
break
would
be.
Do
we
have
a
or
do
you
have
a
list
of
the
comparable
cities
that
you
used
for
chief
Brooks
and
chief
Lee's
paid
in
doing
their
pay
structure,
because
you
said
it
was
done
similarly
to
ours?
Is
it
the
exact
same
comparable
cities
that
you
used
for
ours,
or
is
there
a
different?
It's.
A
A
All
right,
I
think
we're
ready
to
resume
the
contract
labor
negotiations
between
the
city
and
the
police.
Union
with
that
Kyle.
Would
you
like
to
ask
us
any
questions
that
may
have
come
up?
Yes,.
D
We
did
so
and
just
for
clarification,
I
think
when
you're,
when
you're
researching
the
previous
pay
raises
that
we've
discussed,
we
think
there
was
2010
to
2014
contract
was
the
zero
percents
in
there
I,
don't
know
how
many,
if
it
was
every
year
I,
don't
recall
and
then
2014
to
2018
it's
our
understanding,
those
were
1.5
percent
and
one
or
two
of
those
years
we
actually
gave
up
to
at
the
city's
request
to
retain
some
officers
that
we
just
recently
hired
otherwise
they're
gonna
have
to
lay
off
probationary
officers.
D
B
B
But
there
was
also
the
four
percent
one
time
for
each
of
those
years
and
then
we
had
an
mou
I
think
in
2017
to
increase
that
to
five
percent.
So
it
was
the
base
increases
were
lower
and
then
we
were
recognizing
it
with
one-time
increases.
Okay.
D
D
Perfect
and
then
the
question
a
couple
questions
we
had
one
was:
we
just
wanted
to
verify
it
so,
on
the
on
your
proposal,
it
says,
is
time
and
grade
at
step
a
it
says.
12
months.
Is
that
intended
to
be
zero
on
that
step,
a
so
that's
what
they
would
come
in
at
as
a
probationary
new
hire
yep.
B
D
Perfect,
okay,
yeah.
We
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
wasn't
at
the
12-month
Mark
that
they
got
that
very
first
step.
That
would
be
their
hiring
step.
Yep.
That
makes
sense
all
right
and
then,
as
far
as
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
for
the
the
chief
or
for
Courtney.
As
far
as
the
proposals
on
incentive
pay,
certifications,
body
cams
are
those.
Are
you
guys
rejecting
those
or
just
haven't
brought
those
to
the
table?
Yet.
A
I'm
not
sure
when
we're
in
a
position
to
answer
those
I
think
the
challenge
we're
having,
which
is
a
discussion
we'd
like
to
have
is
with
the
resources
we
have
available
for
this
contract.
I
think
the
laterals
is
really
confusing
our
ability
to
understand
where
those
resources
should
go,
but
I'm
sure
Biff
can
put
that
into
math
for
you,
but
we're
kind
of
remain
stuck
on
the
laterals
because
of
the
proposed
budgetary
Impact
versus
the
ability
to
have
resources
in
other
places.
Okay,.
D
A
I,
don't
think
I'm
speaking
at
a
turn
by
saying
at
least
for
now,
everything
can
remain
on
the
table,
with
the
exception
of
the
percentage
increase
for
wearing
body
cameras.
The
city
is
not
interested
in
that.
D
Proposal
so
that
one
will
be
rejected,
okay
and
then
okay,
perfect,
so
that
answers
the
next
one
so
kind
of
our
the
union
doesn't
have
anything
else.
No
other
questions
that
we
came
up
with
for
today's
meeting
other
than
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
city
is
aware.
We
we
think
your
proposal.
The
numbers
on
that
front
end
are
are
very
promising
and
I
think
largely
fixes
that
first
three,
four
years
largely
fixes
a
recruiting
problem
that
we
have
the
issue
we
have
or
potential
issue
that
we
do
see.
D
As
we
move
forward
is
past
year,
five
Beyond
year,
five
there
becomes
an
issue
where
it's
lagging
significantly
and
that's
where
we're
losing
our
officers.
So
you
know
we're
losing
that
5
to
12
year
officer
and
and
our
concern
for
the
citizen.
Safety
would
be
retaining
those
five
to
12
years.
That's
typically
your
best
years
as
an
officer,
that's
when
they've
kind
of
got
their
their
feet
underneath
them
they
understand.
What's
going
on
and
and
we
would
fear
losing
becoming
a
training
ground
for
for
lack
of
a
better
word.
We
don't.
D
We
don't
want
to
become
the
agency
that
trains
everybody
up
and
spends
a
lot
of
money,
getting
officers
well
trained
and
well
prepared
to
go
to
Meridian
or
Ada
County,
and
so
so,
just
from
our
our
perspective,
we
really
appreciate
the
city's
effort
on
that
front
end.
D
We
are
concerned
with
that
Beyond
five-year,
Mark
and
so
I
think.
Maybe
at
the
next
meeting
we
can
bring
a
proposal
back
to
the
table
that
may
be
able
to
balance
both
of
those
out
and.
D
Correct
yeah
yeah,
so
you
know
and
of
course
our
argument
as
you,
as
you
all
know,
from
the
beginning,
has
been
we're
losing
officers,
data,
County,
Sheriff's
Office
and
to
Meridian
Police
Department
years,
one
through
five
on
your
proposal
here
address
that
and
fix
that.
But
at
year
six
we've
started
falling
significantly
back
behind
and
so
I
think.
That's!
D
Yes,
that's
the
concern
is-
and
you
know
to
Denny's
point
a
meeting
or
two
ago
if
it
was
to
a
city
that
you
have
to
move
to
makes
a
little
bit
of
a
difference
right,
but
we're
talking
about
a
five
or
a
six
year
officer
able
to
quit.
Boise
PD
live
in
their
same
home,
their
kids
can
go
to
their
same
school,
they
don't
have
to
pack
up
and
move
and
they
go
do
largely
the
same
job
with
less
work
and
less
expectation
on
them.
You
know
these.
D
These
peer
cities
around
here,
Meridian
Ada,
County,
Garden,
City
Nampa.
They
they
don't
deal
with
protests,
and
you
know
just
this.
Last
Sunday,
we
had
I
think
30
officers,
Chief
Maybe,
able
to
clarify,
but
I
think
we
had
30
or
40
officers
forced
in
on
a
Sunday
to
work
for
potential
protests
and
and
our
officers
are
willing
to
do
that
and
they're
trained
and
they're
they're
willing
to
do
that.
But
it
you
know
those
other
cities.
Don't
have
to
do
that,
so
they
get
their
days
off.
They
get
their
weekends.
C
And
one
other
observation
and
Christine,
please
correct
me
if
I
say
anything
out
of
line
with
your
your
perspective,
so
we
did
you
know,
given
the
discussion
we've
had
at
the
table
about
Meridian
in
particular,
we
did.
Is
we
put
together
this
proposal?
We
were
looking
at
their
rates
versus
our
rates
and
from
my
vantage
point
you
know
if
you
look
at
their
wage
proposal
or
the
current
contract
that's
in
place.
C
But
then
we
passed
them
in
seven.
We
passed
them
in
eight,
so
anyway,
I
just
wanted
I
wanted
you
to
know
that
we
we
have
done
some
due
diligence,
given
the
discussion
about
Meridian
to
to
look
more
closely
and
see
how
our
proposals
compare.
D
Yeah
and
we-
and
we
appreciate
that-
and
that's
that's
why
I
ask
about
the
incentive
for
for
post
certificates,
because
that
does
make
a
big
difference.
I
think
you
know
layered
on
top
of
that,
that
does
make
a
difference
so
yeah.
That's
why
I
wanted
to
clarify
if
those
discussions
are
still
on
the
table,
so
yeah.
C
One
other
observation
and
DC
Brooks:
you
might
be
more
articulate
in
this
area
so
as
we
think
about
our
compensation
structure,
our
contract
versus
the
compensation
structure,
Meridian,
and
there
are
other
aspects
that
that
you
know
to
my
understanding.
Our
police
officers
benefit
from,
for
example,
shift
differentials.
I
mean
premiums
associated
with
things
like
that
that
that
may
not
be
applicable
to
Meridian.
You
know.
So
if
we
do
go
down
to
that
level
of
of
you
know,
comparing
we
would
really
want
to
try
to
be
Apples
to
Apples.
Comparison
is
absolutely.
G
I
also
wanted
to
address
the
information
requests
you
made
right
before
the
break.
You
asked
for
the
list
of
comparables
used
for
chief
Lee
and
chief
Brooks
positions.
We
we
tried
to
do
some
research
during
the
break.
G
G
We
did
want
to
point
out.
We
feel
like
it's
a
bit
of
a
red
herring,
to
try
to
ask
about
comparators
for
these
positions
out
of
the
bargain
unit
When,
we
struggle
to
find
folks
in
the
bargain
unit
willing
to
apply
for
promotional
positions
that
are
out
of
the
unit
because
of
compression
issues
and
because
of
the
fact
that
you
guys
get
overtime,
you
get
comp
time
and.
G
What
we've
heard
is
that
it
would
be
a
pay
cut
for
folks
in
the
bargain
unit
to
become
a
lieutenant
or
they
don't
want
the
extra
responsibility
without
being
able
to
work
over
to
be
able
to
get
overtime
pay,
and
so
obviously
the
city
has
to
account
for
compression
in
these
other
ranks
and
try
to
provide
some
incentive
for
individuals
who
want
to
be
in
these
positions.
So
we
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
D
No
I
I
appreciate
that
Adam
I,
I
will
say,
I
think
it's
probably
a
little
unfair
to
say:
hey,
we
got
to
fix
lieutenant
and
Captain
pay
by
not
paying
our
officers
I
think
that's,
probably
not
a
a
fair
way
to
negotiate.
If
you
will
so
as
far
as
fixing
Lieutenant
Captain
pay
yeah,
those
probably
need
fixed.
That's
that's
outside
our
realm.
D
The
only
reason
we're
asking
about
comparable
pay
when
it
comes
to
the
chief
is
our
officers
are
making
less
money
than
Meridian
PD
the
chief's,
making
more
money
than
Meridian
PT.
So
if
we're
talking
transparency
and
Equity
those
those
kinds
of
things
should
line
up,
I
mean
if,
if
the
chief's
making
more
than
you
would
in
theory,
the
officers
would
be
making
more
if
the
chief's
making
less
than
30
the
officer
would
be
making
less.
D
So
that's
why
we're
inquiring
as
to
that
Chief's
pay,
because
that's
where
the
disparity
is
is
being
seen
But
to
just
say
that
the
lieutenants
and
captains
pay
us
too
low.
So
we
don't
want
to
fix
officers
pay
so
that
there's
this
bigger
Gap,
so
people
will
promote
I,
don't
think,
could
work
in
any
world
that
I
work
in
and
any
of
my
members
would
would
go
for
an
idea
like
that.
B
D
B
I
think
we
are
proposing
to
fix
the
lieutenant
and
Captain
issue
by
sort
of
trying
to
slow
down
Sergeant
pay,
we're
just
saying
that
when
it
comes
to
making
the
informed
pay
decisions
for
those
level
of
positions,
we're
largely
looking
at
the
compression
that
exists
with
the
contract.
So
it's
not
necessarily
looking
at
well.
What
does
Meridian
do
it's
saying?
Well,
what
would
be
a
fair
offer
when
looking
at
our
current
structure
and
our
current
employees
sure.
D
D
C
Yeah
so
I'd
like
to
Circle
back
to
some
information,
I
shared
previously
and
and
make
sure
I
give
you
a
full
picture
so
previously,
before
the
break,
we
had
talked
about
the
lateral,
the
cost
of
the
lateral
placement,
as
well
as
the
cost
of
the
percent
base
increases
that
were
proposed
by
the
union.
C
Last
time
and
I
wanted
to
Circle
back
and
give
you
a
couple
additional
numbers
just
so
you
know
what
the
cost
of
the
certification
pay
estimated
out
to
be
and
what
the
cost
of
the
incentive
pay
minus
the
on-body
video
the
penciled
out
to
be
so
above
the
the
45.8
million
that
I
quoted
before.
C
We
estimate
that
the
certification
pay
would
add
an
additional
432
000.
in
fiscal
year
23.
and
that
the
incentive
pay
would
add
an
additional
roughly
two
hundred
thousand,
and
so
that
gives
you
an
order
of
magnitude.
You
know
so
the
the
base
plus
the
lateral
placement
added
about
2
million
and
then
the
others
added
a
lot
less
I
mean,
and
that
actually
is
really
good
segue
to
some
questions
that
that
I
have
just
to
make
sure
we're
honing
in
on
on
the
right
things,
and
so
also
before
the
break
we
talked
about.
C
You
know
how
many
lateral
officers
from
your
Vantage
Point
are
in
that
mix.
That
would
be
pushed
farther
and
so
I
took
some
time
to
look
back
at
the
city's
fiscal
year.
23
budget
development
and
we
show
60
positions
that
are
pegged
to
that
lateral
police
officer
pay
grade
and
when
I
look
back
at
you
know,
I
thought.
Maybe
it's
a
discrepancy
between
vacancies
versus
positions
that
are
filled
because
we're
we
are
assuming
as
we're
filling
new
positions.
Some
are
going
to
come
in
at
the
lateral
level.
C
Some
are
going
to
come
in
at
the
NPO
level,
and
so
I
was
able
to
identify.
So
we
sync
the
salary
module,
usually
in
the
January
February
time
frame.
C
So
these
numbers
may
not
hold
true
to
today,
but
back
when
we
did
the
salary
scene
for
fiscal
year
23
we
had
36
active
employees
in
that
lateral
police
officer
pay
grade,
and-
and
so
you
know
it
peaked
in
my
mind,
the
question
you
know
as
we
were
talking,
you
know,
you
had
suspect
there
was
a
lower
number
of
lateral
officers
that
would
be
impacted
by
that
and
and
I
think
it
might
be.
C
A
function
of
timeline
so
I
know,
there's
also
been
a
lot
of
conversation
at
the
table
about
you
know:
lateral
placement
once
chiefly
arrived,
and
you
know
first
they
were
high,
then
they
were
low
and
there's
this
unresolved
issue
and-
and
so
from
my
vantage
point,
the
question
is
of
you
know:
how
far
back?
D
That's
a
great
question:
Beth
and
I
appreciate
you
asking
to
clarify
that
so
and
the
reason
our
number
is
going
to
look
different
from
your
60
on
your
laterals
is
because
your
60
is
going
to
be
everybody.
Who's
ever
come
in
at
that
LPL
pay,
correct,
that's
correct,
yeah
so
and
not
all
of
them
are
affected
by
it.
So
it's
a
group,
it's
going
to
be
I,
can
tell
you
it's
going
to
be
a
group.
Chief
Lee
was
hired
July
of
20..
Does
that
sound
right,
July
1st
of
20.?
D
So
it's
going
to
be
a
group
that
would
have
been
hired
from
July
of
20
and
then
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
rough
estimate,
but
to
about
July
of
17..
It
was
about
the
three
to
four
years,
maybe
July
of
16
about
the
three
to
four
years
prior
to
chiefly
arriving
because
that
group
came
in
at
just
the
standard,
regular
lpo
pay
and
then
Chief
Lee
brought
that
the
other
group
that
we're
we're
discussing.
D
Anybody
who
had
been
here
less
than
what
those
guys
were
brought
in
at
would
be
affected
anybody
who
had
been
here
more
than
what
those
guys
were
brought
in
at
wouldn't
be
affected
because
they
would
have
already
been
at
or
above
if
that
makes
sense
what
I'm
saying
so
so
yeah
I
would
I'm
kind
of
guessing
a
little
bit,
but
three
to
five
ish
years
prior
to
July
of
20
would
be
the
group
that's
affected,
so
the
number
of
officers
that
were
hired
in
LPL
pay
during
that
time.
So.
C
That's
helpful,
so
follow-up
question,
so
those
that
were
hired
after
that
group
was
brought
in
so
let's
say
those
that
were
hired
from
that
point
to
today
or
even
looking
forward
into
the
future.
You
know,
as
we
bring
in
a
new
lateral
officer
three
months
from
now
or
six
months
from
now,
is
the
intention
to
land
them
in
the
pay
schedule.
D
It's
everybody.
It
would
then
be
moving
forward.
If,
hypothetically,
we
agreed
on
a
contract
October
one
anybody
hired
after
October
1
as
a
lateral
would
come
in
at
our
proposed
crosswalk,
okay,
so
yeah
they
wouldn't
because
I
think
at
that
point
we
wouldn't
have
that
issue
to
fix
right
so
and
and
I
will
say,
since
Chief
Lee
was
hired
and-
and
today
he's
brought
guys
in
at
different
pay
rates.
Through
that
whole
time
some
were
brought
in
higher.
Some
were
brought
in
lower,
so
there
may
be
a
few
mixed
in
there.
D
We
don't
have
those
numbers
you
would
just
to
see
where's.
He
brought
these
guys
in
because
there
may
be
some
discrepancies
or
inequities
mixed
in
the
last
24
to
27
months,
because
I
know
he
hasn't
brought
everybody
over
as
a
lateral.
During
his
time
here
at
the
exact
same
pay,
some
have
started
lower
and
some
have
started
higher.
C
And
then
you
know
once
again-
and
this
is
thinking
budgetarily
so
so
pardon
if
this
is
a
theoretical
question,
you
know
so
of
the
resources
that
the
city
has
to
to
put
towards.
You
know
solving
the
issues
that
the
union
prioritizes.
C
C
You
know
under
this
is
really
helpful
because
it
really
helps
me
understand
the
intent
behind.
You
know
independent
of
what's
the
financial
implication.
What's
the
intent
and
and
I'm
hearing
that
the
intent
is
there's
a
perceived
discrepancy
and
justice
for
a
particular
employee
group
and
and
the
intent
is
to
rectify
that,
even
though
it's
a
large
dollar
figure,
yeah.
D
We
want
to
I
mean
we.
Our
goal
obviously
is
to
to
represent
all
of
our
membership,
but
there
certainly
are
members,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
take
care
of
of
any
of
our
members,
whether
that
is
because
they
fall
in
the
inequity
group
or
because
they
don't
our
members,
we're
here
to
represent
them.
So
whatever
offer
we
end
up,
taking
back
to
the
membership,
obviously
would
be
up
to
them
on
on
whether
that
is
that
important
I
can't
speak
on
behalf
of
what
could
happen.
C
And
so
so
here's
another
question,
and
this
is
the
moving
forward
piece
you
know.
So
if
we
do
Peg
that
lateral
officer
coming
in
in
the
future
at
that
higher
rate,
it's
really
going
to
you
know
it
and
that's
what
the
long-term
cost
implications
are
in
the
model
that
we
ran
is
you
know
now
we're
no
longer
starting
at
Step
Zero
for
people
coming
in
we're
starting
effectively
step
five.
C
Was
it
Christine
so
step
five,
and
so
just
a
Headroom
that
an
employee
would
have
to
to
experience,
is
lower,
and-
and
so
you
know
for
me,
it
goes
back
to
the
conversation
we've
been
having
around
the
table
of
you
know
is
all
experience
and
both
number
of
years
and
level
of
either
organizational
complexity.
C
You
know
how
does
that
sit
with
members
who
are
growing
up
in
the
Boise
police
force?
You
know
you,
you
come,
maybe
spend
you
know
the
mpo
mp01
mpo2
and
you
would
work
your
way
up,
and
maybe
somebody
comes
over
with
two
years
of
experience
from
who
knows
where
and
they
land
on
that
Five
Spot.
You
know
just
thinking
openly
I
think
you
have
the
potential
to
spark
some
challenges
that
way
too
sure.
D
And
that's
why,
if
you
recall
our
very
first
offer,
when
we
discussed
moving
laterals
over
was
half
credit
for
their
time
and
if
I
recall
Chief
Brooks
wasn't
a
fan
of.
That
is
why
we
kind
of
changed
that.
But
that
would
largely
fix
to
your
point
what
you're
saying
if
a
guy
comes
in
with
two
years
experience
they're
coming
in
at
the
one
year,
pay
so
they're
getting
half
credit
for
their
previous
time.
D
So
that
would
so
we
were
trying
to
on
our
counter
offer,
adjust
to
what
we
felt
like
folks
wanted,
because
our
initial
offer,
or
one
of
our
initial
proposals,
was
to
bring
laterals
in
and
give
them
half-time
credit
for
their
for
their
previous
agency
time,
which
would
address
largely
some
of
that.
So
so
we've
made
an
adjustment
there
and
if
we
want
to
look
back
and
go
back
to
looking
at
something
like
that,
we
would
certainly
be
interested
in
that
discussion,
as
that
was
I.
I.
Believe
one
of
our
initial
proposals.
E
I
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
answer
Biff,
so
officer,
Jones
or
Damon
and
Kyle
were
both
laterals
to
Boise
Police
Department
I
was
not
I've
spent
my
entire
15
years
at
Boise
PD.
There
were
guys
I
came
on
with
who
were
already
cops
laterals
and
they
made
more
money
than
me
and
they
answer
your
question
on.
That
is
I.
Think
young
guys
who
have
started
out
brand
new.
They
they
recognize
that
experience.
E
You
know
so.
There's
there's
not
really
a
discrepancy
there
with
with,
because
your
question
was
about
guys
who've,
you
know
just
started
out
and
then
there's
lateral
guys
coming
in
as
a
police
officer,
trained
police
officer,
even
as
a
young
police
officer,
I.
Think
if
your
heart's
in
the
job,
you
recognize
that
so
there's
not
really
any
angst
in
that.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
F
I
just
like
to
say,
if
we're
going
to
kind
of
look
at
which
you
guys
talked
about
regarding
wanting
of
one
avoiding
becoming
a
training
ground
for
police
officers,
but
also
trying
to
encourage
people
to
apply
here,
I,
don't
think
the
half
credit
one
of
the
reasons
I'm.
F
Not
a
fan
of
the
half
credit
system
that
you
had
talked
about
is
I,
don't
think
when
we're
looking
at
and
I'll
just
use
Meridia
as
an
example
to
give
someone
half
credit
for
time
as
a
lateral
somewhere
else
would
put
them
at
a
lower
pay
step
than
I
think
they
would
be
brought
in
at
that
agency.
F
Just
as
we
look
at
that
and
what
kind
of
formula
we
consider
moving
forward
regarding
laterals
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
something
that
allows
us
to
remain
competitive
as
laterals
are
looking
here
in
the
Treasure
Valley,
so
that
we're
not
hindering
ourselves
by
not
giving
laterals
credit
for
time
that
they
serve.
That
other
agencies
are.
D
No
and
I
think
that's
a
you're
you're
right
on
Chief,
hence
the
reason
we
would
like
to
be
above
meridian.
So
then
that
argument
isn't
quite
as
there,
but
to
your
point
and
I
I
think
to
Chief
washburn's
point
when
we
first
started
meeting
one
thing
to
remember
with
laterals
is:
if
pay
is
fairly
comparable.
That's
where
your
benefit
package
will
tip
those
scales,
because
our
benefit
package
is
better
and
laterals.
D
Think
of
that
kind
of
stuff,
because
they've
typically
got
families
and
whereas
brand
new
officers
to
the
agency,
typically,
the
the
benefit
package
isn't
going
to
be
what
tips
a
scale
for
them.
It's
going
to
be
the
pay
because,
as
we
all
know,
the
older
you
get
the
more
important
those
benefits
are,
and
so
I
think
to
your
point.
Yes
with
laterals,
we
want
to
be
competitive
and
we
want
to
attract
not
only
new
hires,
but
we
want
to
track
laterals
as
well.
D
F
I'll
agree
with
that
and
I
just
ask
that
the
members
who
are
considering
going
there
keep
that
in
mind
as
well,
because
that
same
argument
that
you're
making
for
potential
laterals
coming
here
looking
at
that
benefit
package,
anybody
who's
looking
to
leave
us
for
that.
Similar
issue
needs
to
remember
that
as
well.
D
Absolutely
for
sure,
the
problem
we
have
right
now
is
just
the
inequity
and
pay
right
now
is
so
great
that
even
for
a
lateral
to
leave
us
to
go
to,
there
is
significantly
more,
and
so
that's
that's.
The
issue
is
until
we
can
fix
that
you're
exactly
right
and
to
my
point
that
comes
into
play
when
we're
competitive
on
pay
as
of
right
now,
we're
not
at
that
five
to
twelve
year
pay.
So
that's
why
we're
worried
about
losing
them?
I
mean
there's
a
reason.
Meridian
has
one
opening
and
we've
got.
D
32
is
because
of
that
right.
So
we
need
to
if
we
can
get
our
pay
competitive
with
them,
then
you're
100,
we
we
wouldn't
worry
about
losing
because
guys
will
be
sure
to
to
take
that
into
account,
but
right
now,
with
the
pay
discrepancy
as
a
lateral
you're
willing
to
give
up
a
good
benefit
package
for
five
or
six
bucks
an
hour
for
sure
and.
F
G
I
just
wanted
to
make
one
other
comment
as
well.
You
brought
up
the
fact
that
there
was
a
potential
protest
and
30
to
40
folks
had
to
be
brought
in
on
a
Sunday
and
from
my
standpoint,
wouldn't
you
want
to
have
what
bring
in
laterals,
who
have
dealt
with
protests
before
and
who
have
dealt
with
some
of
the
big
city
issues
that
Boise
deals
with,
and
why?
G
Wouldn't
they
be
more
valuable
to
this
to
the
city
than
maybe
someone
who
I'll
pick
on
Biff's
Hometown,
someone
who
comes
over
from
Burley
and
who
hasn't
had
that
sort
of
experience,
I
I?
That's
why
I
think
it
goes
back
to
the
the
chief
ought
to
be
able
to
to
use
his
discretion
to
determine
the
value
of
someone's
prior
experience.
D
So
I
and
I
appreciate
that
Adam
I
guess
I
would
point
to
how
we
handle
protests
currently
in
the
city
of
Boise
and
traditionally
verse
and
I'll.
Just
I'll
pick
on
Portland,
just
because
it's
easy
how
Portland
handles
protests
I,
don't
think
we
want
to
handle
any
protests
or
Civil
Disobedience.
The
way
that
Portland
is
so
to
say
that
that
we're
going
to
bring
in
Portland
officers,
they
have
a
lot
of
protest
experience
and
then
we
handle
it.
The
way
that
they're
being
handled
in
Portland.
D
That's
on
national
news
I,
don't
think
that
is
very
wise,
I,
quite
frankly,
the
way
that
they're
handled
here
in
Boise
and
I'll
use
Sunday
as
an
example.
It's
a
smaller
town
officer
would
actually
have
been
a
great
fit
for
an
issue
like
that:
they're
communicating
talking
interacting
with
people.
We
had
zero
problems
and
I.
D
Think,
that's
largely
because
of
our
approach
to
the
protests
in
Idaho
versus
approach
to
protests
in
other
cities,
I
mean
I'm
I'm,
watching
Portland
and
Seattle
and
La
burned
to
the
ground,
and
so
I
don't
want
their
tactics
being
used
here
quite
frankly,
and
I
I
would
assume
the
citizens
of
Boise
don't
want
what's
happening
in
Portland
to
happen
in
Boise.
G
Well,
I
I
would
agree
and
I
would
think
that's
more
of
a
political.
How
those
are
politically
handled
rather
than
the
police
forces,
is
they're
handling
it
as
they're
being
told
to
handle
it,
but.
D
Yeah
I
think
I
think
we're
comparing
apples
and
oranges,
I
think
you're,
comparing
folks
in
Idaho
to
folks
in
other
states,
and
so
it's
just
I
think
two
very
different
locations.
Two
very
different
approaches
to
policing.
So
to
say
that
policing
is
done
better
in
a
large
city
is,
is
probably
a
fairly
unfair
statement
in
some
ways.
I
would
say
it
is
and
in
some
ways
I
would
say
it's
not
I
think
it's
a
balancing
act
but
but
I
think
either
way
we
need
to
approach
policing
and
I.
D
Think
our
citizens
here
want
policing
approach
the
way
that
Idaho
approaches,
policing
we've
got
a
really
really
good
track
record
of
how
we
treat
people,
how
we
get
police
work
done.
I
I
believe
one
of
our
lieutenants
recently
did
a
survey
of
the
public,
including
people
we'd
arrested
people.
We'd
responded
to
calls
and
I
want
to
say
somewhere
in
the
area
of
97
percent
was
how
happy
people
were
with
the
service
they
received
from
the
Boise
Police
Department
in
his
in
his
study.
So
I
think
we
want
to
continue
that
Trend.
D
We
want
to
continue
treating
people
right,
policing
the
way
that
our
officers
do
away.
I
I
would
argue.
We
have
the
finest
officers
in
the
country
within
the
Boise
Police
Department,
and
the
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
lose
them
or
change
our
culture,
to
a
point
that
where
our
citizens
are
not
getting,
the
quality
service
that
they're
currently
getting.
G
D
Oh
absolutely
yep
and
that's
why
I
think
the
most
Equitable
way
to
do
it
is
how
we've
proposed
it,
because
otherwise
you're
going
to
have
to
essentially
the
chief
you're,
putting
a
lot
of
weight
on
the
chief
to
then
go.
Do
a
background
from
that
agency
for
every
lateral
hire.
We
do
and
that's
a
that's
a
burden
we
I
just
don't
think,
is
fair
to
to
put
on
him
along
with
the
cost
and
everything
else.
D
It
would
go
along
with
having
him
reach
out
and
check
with
every
single
agency
to
see
what
their
training's
like
to
see,
what
the
kind
of
experience
they're
getting
all
that
kind
of
thing.
So
we're
looking
I
mean
there's
not
an
exact,
easy
solution.
We
recognize
that,
but
so
we're
just
trying
to
look
at.
G
Okay,
you
know
I
I,
just
from
my
one
just
one
mother
comment
from
my
perspective:
you
don't
represent
officers
until
they
start
working
for
the
city.
So
why
does
it
matter
if
the
chief
determines
to
make
a
offer
to
bring
someone
in
at
a
certain
salary
that
individual
can
say
yes
or
no,
and
if
they
accept
it,
then
they
thought
it
was
a
good
offer.
So
I
I
guess
I,
don't
understand
the
piece
about
now.
Two
years
later
it
was
a
bad
offer.
D
D
It's
it's
pretty
hard
when
you're
the
trainer
in
the
passenger
seat
of
a
patrol
car,
making
less
money
than
the
lateral
officer
that
just
came
in
trying
to
tell
them
how
we
police
in
Boise
and
help
them
understand
our
culture
and
how
we
do
things
and
they're
sitting
in
the
driver's
seat
making
more
money
than
you
are
and
when
that
is
very
discretionary
to
the
chief.
D
You
know
you
may
get
a
chief
that
goes
I'm
going
to
bring
all
my
friends
over
at
this
pay
and
pays
them
extremely
high,
and
then
says:
oh,
but
I,
don't
like
these
guys
or
I,
don't
like
this
agency
or
whatever
it
is
and
brings
them
in
at
a
lower
rate.
So
it
just
it
becomes
this
very
non-transparent,
unequitable
unequitable
issue
and
we're
trying
to
make
it
fair.
Now
what
I'm
trying
you're
exactly
right,
Adam
I'm!
D
That's
why
I'm
not
trying
to
negotiate
starting
pay
at
the
very
bottom
dollar
a
whole
bunch,
because
that's
how
far
outside
of
our
members
hands,
but
when
people
come
in
at
a
higher
rate,
and
now
my
members
end
up
being
affected,
because
the
new
guy
was
brought
in
at
a
higher
rate
that
becomes
a
membership
issue.
So
so
to
say,
it's
not
I
think
is
again
a
little
bit
unfair.
D
We
want
to
make
sure
we're
taking
care
of
our
members,
and
that
includes
how
people
are
brought
in,
and
the
type
of
people
that
come
in
is
a
huge
difference,
because
those
are
the
officers
that
will
be
assisting
me
on
calls.
That
will
be
backing
me
up.
That
I
mean
we.
We
certainly
don't
want
to
get
to
a
place
where
I'll
just
bring
in
whoever
we
want,
because
again,
that
will
change
the
culture
that
we
believe
is
an
outstanding
culture
in
the
in
the
city
of
Boise.
A
So
I
think
the
city's
preference
I'm
gonna
make
up
some
words
and
I'm
gonna,
look
to
DC
Brooks
to
correct
me,
but
the
city
very
much
would
like
for
you
to
be
able
to
return
the
discussion
about
the
Civil
Service
mou
I
believe
it
has
implications
for
hiring
processes
for
trying
to
conduct
currently
and
so
I
understand,
family
emergencies,
and
so
we're
happy
to
put
that
off
till
next
time.
But
we
would
like,
if,
if
you're
inclined
to
be
prepared
to
have
that
conversation
next
time
as
well,.
D
Yes,
absolutely
we
definitely
will
and
we'll
we'll
have
I
think
a
counter
to
your
financial
counter
today,
as
well.
Looking
at
the
calendar
and
I
don't
know
that
we'll
strike
gold
twice.
We
did
last
time,
but
I
I
will
say
the
we
were
looking
to
the
week
of
the
25th.
However,
that
week
we
really
only
have
one
day
that
our
team
would
be
available.
A
Yeah
I
will
be
in
DC,
okay,.
B
F
F
And
Kyle
I
think
as
we
talk
about
the
the
Civil
Service
mou,
the
one
thing
in
particular
and
I'm
sure
many
of
your
members
can
appreciate
this
or
what
I'm
about
to
say:
Obviously
the
Sergeant's
exam
notification
just
went
out,
and
so
even
if
you're
not
necessarily
prepared
to
talk
about
the
entire
mou
regarding
the
Civil
Service
rules,
but
possibly
have
something
that
we
can
agree
to
as
it
pertains
to
the
Sergeant's
promotion
so
that
it
could
be
applicable
to
the
process.
That's
going
on
now:
okay,
we'll.
G
So
we
are
doing
the
fire
mediation
on
the
fifth.
I
could
do
the
fourth
if
it
works,
I'm
not
available
on
the
sixth
and
I
could
do
the
third
or
the
seventh,
probably
virtually.
A
I
can
do
the
morning
of
October
4th
if
that
works.
For
you
all,
maybe
we
just
block
9
to
12
again,
unless
you
think
we
need
a
longer.
D
You
know
if
we're
doing,
if
we're
going
to
have
the
discussion
with
the
Civil
Service
and
the
financial,
if
we
could
schedule
for
longer,
I
think
that
would
probably
be
better
if
we
end
up
finishing
early
that'd
be
fine,
but
I
think
that'll
be
a
lengthier
day.
If
we
can
schedule
a
little
longer,
that'd
be
good.
A
A
All
right
Jamie,
would
you
just
do
whatever
we
need
to
do
to
make
sure
that
happens.
Thank
you
anything
else
before
we
conclude
today,
nothing
from
our
side.
All
right
with
that
I
will
close
the
meeting.
Thank
you.