►
From YouTube: Police CLA Negotiations - Day 9
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
city
and
police
Union
contract
labor
negotiations
I
propose
to
start
the
meeting
the
same
way.
We
start
every
meeting,
which
is
introductions.
My
name
is
Courtney
Washburn
I'm,
the
chief
of
staff
for
the
city
of
Boise.
A
E
E
E
Is
going
to
discuss
potentially
changing
the
way
we
look
at
the
pay
scale
we
dropped
in
a
proposal.
The
top
of
it
shows
the
current
pay
scale,
which
has
three
pay
scales:
the
PO
pay
scale,
which
we
still
have
members
on
the
NPO
pay
scale
and
the
lateral
pay
scale.
E
I
think
some
of
the
original
goal
was
to
simplify
the
pay
scale.
We
also
wanted
to
compress
it
I
think
we're
abandoning
the
compression
side
of
of
that
because
of
the
cost
to
it.
Biff
mentioned
that
it
costs
an
additional
two
million
dollars
to
compress.
So
what
we're
proposing
is
one
pay
scale
which
is
listed
there
on
the
proposed
pay
scale.
E
E
So
what
we
would
Advocate
is
an
increase
to
those
hourly
rates
and
those
are
the
current
hourly
rates
on
that
pay
scale,
with
the
red
being
highlighted
of
an
increase
of
three
dollars
and
seven
cents
to
what
would
have
been
the
npo3
previous
and
the
npo1
of
4.79.
E
Based
on
the
quest
information
that
provided
us,
we
estimate
that
to
be
40
members
in
the
po3
region
and
38
members
in
the
po1
region,
and
so
that
was
the
simplest
way
for
us
to
get
to.
One
pay
scale
is
to
try
to
put
everybody
on
a
single
pay
scale
to
simplify
it,
which
will
help
in
recruiting
it'll
help
in
dealing
with
headaches
after
people
come
to
work
here,
and
it
is
not
compressed,
it's
just
we're
trying
to
slide
it
into
one.
E
So,
on
the
original
pay
scale,
the
PO
pay
scale,
we
only
have
members
that
are
in
po10
or
higher,
so
it
wouldn't
affect
any
members
from
that
pay
scale,
because
they're
already
at
those
same
pay
rates
as
that
Center
column
of
NPO,
the
laterals
once
again,
the
only
ones
it
affect
are
the
po3s
and
the
lpos.
E
So
it
is
a
little
bit
in
alignment
with
what
the
city
has
proposed
in
the
past.
As
far
as
trying
to
bring
up
the
newer
officers
pay
to
assist
with
the
inclining
costs
of
living
in
the
area,
so
it
would
be
a
jump
for
you
know
the
non-probationary
police
officers
a
little
bit
of
a
substantial
jump
on
the
pay
to
get
everybody
in
the
same
pay
grade,
and
so
we're
we're
prepared
to
the
sergeants.
E
We
would
just
leave
it
the
way
it
is
and
then,
as
we
work
through,
what
a
pay
increase
would
look
like.
We'll
just
add
the
percentages
to
those
so
we're
open
for
discussion.
We're
learning
that
that
pay
scale
and
I
know
Beth
will
have
to
run
numbers
obviously
to
calculate
these
kinds
of
things,
but
as
conceptually
I
think
that
it
benefits
both
the
department
and
the
union
to
have
a
simplified
pay
scale.
E
E
B
E
Well,
I
think
you're
well
aware
that
the
city
originally
designed
this
that
Biff
would
be
kind
of
a
resource
that
everybody
would
use
and
that
he
would
kind
of
be
the
his
team
would
kind
of
be
the
number
crunchers
so
that
we
get
it
accurately.
So
to
your
question.
No,
by
design
an
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
CLA
foreign.
C
Observation
and
a
question
from
my
from
my
seat,
so
I
I
see
that
you
know
you're
isolating
one
of
the
variables
of
the
negotiation
which
is
of
just
the
pay
structure.
You
know
so
I'm
recognizing
you
know
looking
at
where
pay
rates
are
today,
you
know
that's
what
the
current
pay
structure
is
at
the
top,
and
so
really
this
is
a
structure
proposal
you
know
correct,
and
so
the
only
so
any
negotiated
percent
increase
would
be
from
this
starting
point.
Correct.
E
That's
that's.
What
we're
abdicating,
but
I,
figured
one
of
the
goals
was
to
create
a
more
immutable
pay
structure
and
so
I
figure.
If
we
start
here
before
we
start
talking
about
cost
of
living
raises,
like
that'll,
give
us
at
least
a
foundation
to
start
on,
instead
of
calculating
all
these
variables
and
then
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
would
crosswalk
people
so
the
way
we
envision
it
is,
if
you're,
a
lateral,
lpo5
and
you've
been
here
a
year.
E
Basically
that
would
be
the
same
as
a
npo5
who've
been
here
a
year,
and
so
basically,
wherever
you
would
start
on
that
schedule,
it
would
just
continue
just
like,
if
you're
a
new
person,
whether
you're
a
lateral
or
not,
and
that's
pretty
much
how
we've
done
the
lpo
scale,
it
just
pushes
it
into
one
and
the
the
First
Column.
E
The
original
po
schedule
will
attrition
in
another
five
to
ten
years,
depending
on
how
many
people
stay
here,
but
as
far
as
the
dollar
salary
rate
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
affect
it,
although
this
would
obviously
attrition
It
Off.
E
A
I'm
sorry
I'm
in
the
proposed
pay
scale
increase
so
the
lpo3
at
three
307
and
the
lpo
rate
at
479
I'm
just
curious
where
those
numbers
came
from.
E
So
we
took
basically
what
we
did
was
we
just
said:
how
do
we
convert
everybody
onto
one
pay
scale
and
the
least
amount
of
effect
with
78
members
would
be
moving
lpo
threes
into
npo3s.
The
opio3s
currently
make
three
dollars:
thirty
seven
dollars
and
20
cents
and
the
current
NPO
threes
make
3413..
So
obviously
our
members
wouldn't
appreciate
taking
a
three
dollar
pay
less,
so
we
figured
we'd
have
to
increase
the
npos.
So
it's
the
difference
between
mpo3
and
lpo3.
H
And
Denny,
are
you
proposing
this
becomes
effective
like
retroactively
or
upon
ratification,
or
when
would
it?
When
would
the
change
be.
E
I
mean
we,
we
would
recommend
that
this
be
part
of
the
contract
going
forward,
so
once
this
contract
goes
into
effect
that
this
would
be
it
now,
we
do
propose
a
cost
of
living
coming
up
today
to
discuss
a
cost
of
living
increase
on
top
of
these
numbers.
E
But
what
we
really
would
like
to
do
is
resolve
this
three
pay
scale
issue
so
just
historically
there's
at
least
three
groups
of
hires
that
were
told
information
that
was
incorrect
or
inconsistent
with
the
contract
as
far
as
where
they
would
start
what
their
pay
would
be
when
they
would
receive
additional
payments,
pay
increases,
Etc
and
so
I
think
by
just
simplifying
this,
it
would
be
very
easy
for
the
administration.
E
It
would
be
very
easy
for
people
who
are
interested
in
lateraling
here
for
them
to
get
on
the
internet
and
see
what
a
pay
scale
is
to
understand
what
their
costs
or
their
expenses
would
be
versus
I
mean
they're.
Sorry,
their
income
would
be
versus
their
costs
as
far
as
Recruitment,
and
in
doing
that,
so
we're
really
just
trying
to
simplify
the
pay
scale.
G
And
I
think
we're
all
in
agreement
that
that
is
good
for
everyone
to
have
a
simplified
pay
scale
and
I'm,
not
the
mathematician
in
the
room.
But
if
you
take
the
40
members
with
a
three
dollar
and
seven
Cent
increase
and
times
that
by
two
thousand
eighty
hours
a
year,
you
come
up
with
255,
000
and
change.
And
then,
if
you
take
the
38
members
increasing
by
479,
it
comes
to
about
378..
So
a
total
of
about
634
000
impact,
roughly
I'll.
G
Let
this
be
the
one
who
runs
numbers
but
that
that's
just
my
quick
figuring.
You
would
have
a
little
over
half
a
million
dollar
impact.
By
doing
this,
yeah.
E
And
so
we're
not
necessarily
looking
for
approval
on
this
at
this
moment,
obviously,
numbers
are
going
to
have
to
be
crunched,
but
if
conceptually,
you
think
that
is
amenable,
then
maybe
we
can
start
talking
about
cost
of
living
and
then
Biff
can
crunch
all
the
numbers
and
come
back
with
really
what
it's
going
to
cost
the
city
for
what
we're
proposing.
C
And
from
my
vantage
point,
I
think
that's
that's
good
to
see
the
whole
landscape
of
what
you're
proposing
and
then
you
know
great
great
rough
math.
There
Chief
I
think
it
it'll
be
good
for
us
to
look
at
the
whole
landscape
and
then
help
reflect
back
to
the
cost
of
the
different
parts.
Yeah.
D
E
E
A
brief
statement
of
proposal
for
pay
a
year,
one
cost
of
living
increase
of
7.75
the
year
two
cost
of
living
of
6.25
post
certification,
pay
of
0.33
for
an
intermediate
0.33
for
an
advance
0.33
for
master
compounding
and
.75
for
the
supervisor.
A
Okay,
it
might
just
be
me,
but
I,
don't
have
the
document.
Okay,.
D
E
All
right
there
we
go
so
we
wanted
to
incentivize
training
and
education.
I
know
the
city
had
changed
the
requirements
and
then
provided
some
information
related
to
you
know,
for
example,
Chief
Brooks,
who
didn't
have
a
college
degree
started,
ends
up
with
a
master's
degree
and
becomes
the
chief
of
police
and
now
a
deputy
chief
of
police.
So
we
feel
like
we
need
to
incentivize
training
and
education
and
to
do
that.
E
We're
going
to
have
to
have
a
post
certificate
pay,
otherwise
people
are
not
going
to
be
interested
in
going
back
to
school,
not
furthering
your
education
and
I.
Think
that
that's
important
for
the
citizens
to
to
have
the
best
officers
they
can.
So
with
that.
You
know
the
training
and
education
part
without
a
college
degree.
It
requires
six
years
to
get
an
intermediate
post
certificate
with
two
years
of
college
and
some
training.
So
the
way
those
work
and
I
think
the
chief
probably
understands
it.
E
The
best
from
the
city
side
is
that
it's
a
combination
of
of
training
and
education
and
years
of
experience,
so,
for
example,
the
master
certificate
cannot
be
obtained
until
15
years
or
greater
of
service
as
a
law
enforcement
officer
with
a
degree
and
substantial
training,
and
so
not
everybody
would
be
eligible
for
the
certificates
based
on
where
they're
at
so
a
three-year
officer
without
a
college
degree
would
not
be
able
to
attain
an
intermediate
certificate
until
they
either
were
at
six
years
or
had
finished
some
college
education.
E
So
those
variables
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
little
challenging
on
this
side
to
figure
all
that
out.
But
that
is
definitely
something
that
we
feel
is
important
to
continue
the
education
of
our
officers
and
members,
especially
with
lowering
these
standards
to
start
with,
which
is
not
a
bad
idea.
It's
just.
We
want
to
keep
people
moving
forward
and
growing.
E
Then,
lastly,
we
want
to
talk
about
how
we're
going
to
bring
laterals
in.
We
feel
like
it's
important
to
have
a
consistent
issue.
We've
we've
dealt
with
this
a
couple
of
times
at
the
table.
So
far
we
haven't
really
come
to
terms
I,
don't
know
how
much
of
that
was
the
previous
Chief.
E
Originally
we
asked
for
halftime
credit
up
to
a
certain
level.
We
will
continue
to
that.
Basically,
any
lateral
up
to
14
years
would
get
halftime
credit,
so
they
would
start
it
as
level
seven.
If
they
were
a
tenure,
they
would
start
at
level
five
Etc
and
we
would
remove
the
discretionary
and
qualitative
analysis
on
basic
basic
experience
on
officers
and
just
have
a
fixed
rate.
E
So
when
people
lateral
here
they'll
know
where
they're
going
to
start,
and
so
our
second
proposal
was
related
to
how
Meridian
does
it,
which
I
think
we'd
be
okay
with,
but
I
think
this
is
a
simpler
formula
and
ultimately,
we
just
take
their
years
of
experience,
take
their
years
of
experience
and
cut
them
in
half
and
say
this
is
where
you're
going
to
start
and
hopefully,
if
we're
hiring
good
people.
That
experience
comes
through
and
the
reason
that
we
hired
them.
E
So
if
we
hired
somebody
from
a
more
experienced
Place
versus
a
less
experienced
place,
my
guess
is
they're
going
to
finish
better
on
the
testing
they're
going
to
be
more
more
qualified,
they're
going
to
be
hired.
So
we're
looking
to
remove
that.
We
have
some
some
trepidation
related
to
the
qualitative
analysis
of
what
makes
that
experience
and
I
think
we.
E
The
best
example
that
we
have
right
now,
in
my
opinion,
is
Officer
Armando
Arroyo,
who
came
from
a
small
town
in
Idaho
with
three
years
experience
he's
an
excellent
officer,
but
when
you
look
at
them
on
paper,
we
didn't
give
him
credit
for
his
skills
and
ability,
and
so
I
I
think
that
this
is
the
simplest
way.
It
will
alleviate
headaches
that
we
currently
have
and
have
been
dealing
with
for
the
last
few
years.
G
So
just
to
clarify
under
the
proposal,
if
somebody
worked
at
pick
one
LAPD
for
10
years,
they
would
get
five
years
credit
if
they
worked
at
Wendell
PD
for
five
years.
They'd
get
two
and
a
half
years
credit.
So
there's
no
differentiation
between
experience
and
and
no
discretion
available.
If.
E
Those
matters,
so
our
Our
concern
is
that
discretion
has
been
abused
and
I
think
the
best
example
is
we
had
a
chief
who
brought
in
some
people
from
Portland
with
10
years
of
experience
and
gave
them
10
years
of
credit
and
then
turned
around
and
gave
a
12-year
Portland
experience
guy
three
three
years
of
credit,
and
so
how
do
you
draw
those
lines
because
you
know
were
the?
Were
the
deputy
chief
Brooks
worked
110-man
Department?
E
You
don't
do
as
much
as
a
patrol
officer
because
detectives
handle
pretty
much
everything,
whereas
in
a
smaller
agency
or
Agency
Boise
side
A
lot
of
times,
you
do
a
lot
more,
sometimes
detectives
don't
get
involved.
I
know
for
a
fact
that
LAPD
you
go
on
a
major
crime
and
all
you
do
is
fill
out
a
face.
You
get
the
basic
information
detectives
show
up
and
conduct
investigation.
E
Sometimes,
in
smaller
organizations
you
do
the
crime
scene
investigation,
you
do
the
interviews,
you
do
you
do
everything,
and
that
is
a
greater
experience,
so
I
think
just
like
when
we
hire
a
brand
new
person,
we're
taking
a
little
bit
of
a
gamble
based
on
the
interview
process
of
what
this
person
is
going
to
turn
out
to
be
based
on
the
training
experience.
So
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
is,
and
maybe
you
could.
E
We
could
have
a
discussion
about
what's
a
better
way
to
qualitatively
and
analyze
those,
and
it's
not
that
we're
trying
to
take
or
asking
to
take
away
all
discretion
from
the
chief,
but
I
think
it
makes
it
simpler,
it's
more
transparent
and
when
I'm
sitting
in
Texas
and
I'm
looking
at
coming
to
Boise
Idaho
I
can
see
right
on
the
website.
This
is
my
experience.
This
is
where
I
would
start.
E
I
think
it
causes
us
some
headaches,
and
so
Meridian
system
is
a
little
bit
different,
but
it's
it's
also
declared
and
there's
some
slight
there's
some
slight
discretion
in
there
and
we
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
going
back
to
that
and
we
can
pull
that
back
up
that
was
previously
denied
during
other
negotiations,
but
I
think
we
need
to
resolve
this
issue.
E
I,
don't
remember
exactly
Chief
Washburn,
it
was
probably
one
of
the
latter.
I
would
say
my
guess
is
September
and
September
we're
doing
propels
so
I
mean
I,
understand
that
I.
G
I
personally
am
not
opposed
to
having
some
structure
in
place,
so
I
get.
That
I
would
just
also
like
to
preserve
some
level
of
discretion.
If
you
know
if
things
need
to
be
adjusted
somewhat,
one
way
or
the
other
and.
E
I
and
I
think
the
Meridian
model
is
a
good
model
and
we
can
pull
that
back
up
and
and
perhaps
on
a
breakout
session.
You
guys
can
look
at
that
and
we
could
figure
out.
If
that's
amenable.
The
other
thing
is.
We
want
to
be
competitive
with
Meridian
and
local
agencies
so
that
that
isn't
a
factor
that
sways
a
lateral
from
going
here
or
over
there
that
it's
off
the
table
because
at
least
it's
it's
compared
comparable.
E
I
believe
meridians
was,
if
you
have
three
years
of
experience,
they
will
bring
you
in
at
a
certain
level
between
zero
and
three
and
then,
if
you
had
like
three
to
five,
they
could
bring
you
in
at
five
or
under
and
then,
if
you
had
more
than
eight,
they
could
bring
you
about
five
or
higher,
we'll
have
we'll
have
to
double
check.
There
was
some
discretion
in
there
and
I
think
we
would
be
amenable
to
that
proposal
because
it's
also
competitive
with
Meridian.
E
It
does
have
some
discretion,
but
it
has
some
caps
and
it's.
It
requires
less
qualitative
analysis
conducted
by
the
administration
to
make
those
determinations.
H
Sure
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding.
First,
on
the
proposal
for
the
compounding
post
certification
pay.
Oh
I
see
it's
you
added
the
0.75
for
supervisor.
E
E
So
it's
a
little
weird
how
the
adapa
the
regulation
rules
are,
and
so,
if
you,
for
example,
if
we
had
a
20-year
Sergeant
who
became
a
sergeant
at
year
10,
he
was
ineligible
to
apply
for
a
master's
post
certificate
because
he
didn't
have
15
years
of
service
and
because
he's
a
supervisor
he
can
no
longer
apply
for
it.
So
we
wanted
to
ensure
some
continuing
education.
Incentives
for
the
supervisors
also.
H
E
One
well
with
the
compression
all
these
numbers
change
so
with
the
compression
costing
an
additional
2
million
dollars,
and
that
was
a
factor
in
the
city's
decision
for
their
proposal.
Since
this
isn't
related
to
comp
compression
it's
going
to
alleviate
some
of
those
costs,
and
so
what
we
would
ask
is
that
we
come
up
with
some
calculation
costs
related
to
those
or
you
know,
a
city
determination
on
those
numbers,
because
it
doesn't
include
the
two
million
dollar
cost
that
compression
cost.
D
D
C
The
potential
flight
paths
for
police
officers
in
your
proposal
for
the
certification
pay.
So
if
I
you
know,
if
an
individual
were
to
receive
their
intermediate
certification,
they
would
get
point
three
three
percent.
If
then
they
go
on
to
advance
it
would
compound
they'd
get
0.66,
they
opt
to
get
a
supervisor
shirt
rather
than
a
master.
So
so
then
it's
going
to
be
the
sum
of
the
0.66
and
the
0.75.
The.
E
Way,
we
would
write
it
once
if
we
got
down
to
the
nitty
gritty.
Audit
I
think
would
be
the
if
you're
a
supervisor
you're
eligible
for
the
supervisor
cert
and
that
that
would
take
the
off
the
table.
The
other
certs.
E
We
could
look
for
the
Meridian
lateral
proposal
and
show
you
I,
can
text
Adam
and
tell
them
where
it's
at
and
then
we
can.
You
guys
can
review
that
and
we
can
figure
out
where
we're
at.
A
That
would
be
great.
Does
anyone
have
any
additional
questions
before
we
break
all
right?
How
how
long
would
we
like
to
break
for.
E
H
A
All
right
folks
we're
back
from
a
break
and
I
think
we'll
start
off
with
Adam.
H
So
we
we
spent
some
time
they've
spent
some
time
costing
your
proposal
that
you
gave
us
and
I
think
we're
going
to
have
a
bit.
Explain
it
to
you
where
we
we,
like
the
pay
structure
that
you
gave
us
and
we
can
talk
about
the
cost
of
that
and
I
think
for
the
lateral
proposal
you
gave
us.
We
like
that
as
well
with
one
tweak
which
I
think
the
chief
can
explain,
but
why
don't
we
start
with
having
Biff
kind
of
just
walk
through
the
costume.
H
Why
don't
you
run
through
your
numbers
first
and
then
we'll
talk
about
that?
Okay,.
C
Great
so
Chiefs
back
of
the
napkin
math
turned
out
to
be
pretty
good
so
for
the
the
shift
in
the
structure.
So
just
talking
about
the
enhancement
to
pay
for
po1
and
po3
ranks
that
you
had
reflected
to
us.
When
you
look
at
just
the
pay
rates.
C
The
number
that
Chief
had
offered
previously
was
about
six
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars,
and
once
you
factor
in
fringes
and
over
time
that
number's
closer
to
three
quarters
of
a
million
dollars
and
then,
when
you
look
at
the
base,
pay
adjustment
of
7.25
percent,
that
adds
an
additional
close
to
1.2
million
dollars.
On
top
that.
C
C
Thank
you.
That
means
our
numbers
are
slightly
low,
but
even
so
that
gives
you
a
rough,
a
rough
number
because
Justin
and
I,
as
we
were
running
the
numbers
we
had
in
our
head
7.25.
So.
E
C
You
you're
welcome
yep
so
year,
two
of
that
piece
either
the
year
two
component
is
about
eight
hundred
and
forty
thousand,
so
so
think
of
that
money
going
to
that
group
of
employees.
C
And
then
in
year,
two
so
total
impact
year,
one
and
once
again
let
me
do
some
tweaking
on
the
formulas.
D
C
C
So
all
in
the
cost
of
those
two
components:
the
structure,
change
and
the
775
in
fiscal
year.
23
is
just
south
of
2.3
million
dollars
and
then
in
fiscal
year,
24
I'm
projecting
it's
just
south
of
2.6
million
dollars.
E
Okay,
thank
you
and
how
many
members
did
you
come
up
with
from
Quest
occurred
to
just
use
the
numbers
that.
C
We
kind
of
gave
you
yep,
so
we
we
ran
with
your
numbers,
but
Justin
and
I
did
double
check
before
we,
okay,
we
started
crunching
those
numbers.
You
came
up
with
78.
When
we
looked
at
the
population
file,
it
was
about
73,
and
so
so
we
figured
it
was
really
really
close.
Okay.
C
C
Yeah
so
total
cost
and
once
again,
I'll
let
Adam
speak
back
to
the
certification
pay
component,
but
already
the
magnitude
of
financial
impact
is
rivaling.
Your
last
proposal.
H
And
that's
that's
where
we're
struggling
with,
because
we
we
don't
have
that
much
money
to
put
on
the
table
and
so
we're
trying
to
figure
out.
We
we
can
come
back
with
a
counter
proposal
and
guess
where
you
would
prefer
to
have
the
money.
Is
it
towards
the
laterals?
Is
it
towards
everyone
in
base
pay?
Is
it
certification
pay
where
you
want
it
to
go
or
we
can
have
you
tell
us?
What
are
your
priorities
so
and
you
can?
H
You
can
either
give
us
another
proposal
or
you
can
tell
us
what
your
priorities
are
and
we'll
try
to
come
back
with
counter
proposal
that
meets
our
financial
limits
but
prioritizes
what's
most
important
to
you.
E
So
I
think
from
our
perspective,
the
pay
scale
and
the
certification
incentives
are
a
priority
and
I
think
we
would
welcome
a
counter
proposal
with
those
included
and
then
see
where
we're
at
on
the
cost
of
living
impact
that
you
think
the
city
can
swing.
Obviously
you
know
numbers
or
numbers
and
we're
willing
to
negotiate
some
of
those
and
so
but
I
think.
H
Yeah
I
mean
I
think
that's
helpful
for
us
I
I
from
our
standpoint,
the
certification
pay
we
we
had
talked
during
our
caucus
about
instead
of
certification,
a
opening
of
the
city
tuition,
reimbursement
program
to
members
of
the
police
bargaining
unit
and
from
I.
Think
from
our
standpoint
we
would.
We
would
like
to
see
the
police
officers
further
their
education
and
get
degrees
and
by
opening
up
the
city's
tuition
reimbursement
program
to
them.
That
would
allow
for
that
and
I
think
we
were
less
interested
in
the
sort
of
condition
today.
E
So
I
I
appreciate
that
I
think
the
post
certificate
pay
betters
the
organization
and
the
members
individually
more
than
just
a
tuition
reimbursement
program,
because
the
tuition
reimbursement
program
only
will
help
on
their
formal
education
side
where
the
post
required
training
hours
will
help
on
the
experience
and
specific
police
related
skills,
additional
training,
so
I
I.
Think
for
us.
The
post
certificate
pays
incentivize
both
a
formalized
education
as
well
as
a
job
specific
training
in
education
and
would
bring
up
both
so
I
mean
I.
E
Think
that
we
would
be
more
amenable
to
dealing
with
the
overall
costs
versus
removal
of
the
post
certificate
pays
and
and
for
tuition
reimbursement,
because
we
feel,
like
that's,
only
a
one-sided,
a
one-sided
incentive
where
it's
only
incentivizing
the
formalized
education
and
with
the
post
you'll
get
accelerated
by
having
a
formalized
education
having
a
bachelor's
degree
accelerates
it
to
a
certain
level
having
a
master's
degree
accelerates.
It
even
faster,
but
also
requires
law
enforcement,
specific
training,
post-certified
training,
and
so
it
incentivizes
both
sides.
E
D
H
H
E
And
I
think
that
we're
trying
to
approach
it
from
a
reasonable
perspective.
Obviously
we
don't
know
the
city's
bottom
line,
but
we're
willing
to
give
up.
We
understand
that
there
is
a
finite
resource
and
so
we're
willing
to
massage
this.
E
However,
we
need
to
to
get
the
most
prioritize
things
for
us,
so
I
think
that
if
the
city
has
a
better
idea
of
how
to
squeeze
in
a
cost
of
living
raise
giving
these
other
factors,
we
would
welcome
that
proposal
and
then
we
can
continue
to
massage
the
numbers
from
there.
G
Can
I
ask
a
question
regarding
the
post
certification?
If
we
go
down
that
road,
do
you
have
a
sense
of
the
number
of
folks
who
are
in
each
category?
That
is
that
something
we
need
to
go
back
and
research,
because
obviously
we
have
a
certain
number
of
folks
in
the
basic
the
intermediate
and
the
advanced
certificate
certificate
ranges.
E
I,
don't
know
everybody's
education
rate,
so
we
went
on
the
lowest
common
denominator,
assuming
that
everybody
had
a
college
degree.
So,
for
example,
in
the
intermediate
rate,
if
you
have
a
college
degree
at
two
years,
you
can
get
your
intermediate
post.
So
we
went
off
the
numbers
based
on
that,
assuming
that
everybody
did
knowing
that
that's
the
higher
number
but
I'm
sure
Biff
can
use
the
questica
system
to
be
the
most
accurate.
E
H
G
So
in
in
general,
I
think
we
can
be
supportive
of
The
Proposal
that
you
made
as
far
as
lateral
pay
and
crediting
half
time
for
service
outside
this
agency
when
they
come.
G
We
also
want
to
have
the
ability
to
have
that
that
discretionary
offer,
above
that
in
certain
circumstances.
So
in
other
words,
if
we
are
looking
for
an
a
lateral
officer
with
a
particular
skill
set,
then
we
would
like
to
maintain
the
ability
to
offer
something
more
than
what
the
structure
says.
So
we
would
be
good
with
the
structure
as
proposed
with
the
caveat
of
adding
that
at
the
chief's
discretion
he
or
she
could
add
up
to
five
years
of
service
to
that.
G
So,
in
other
words,
if
an
officer
comes
in
with
10
years
of
experience
or
say
15
years
of
experience,
they
would
get
credit
for
seven
and
a
half
years
here,
and
that
would
be
the
pay
scale
that
they
drop
into
the
chief.
Could
then,
if
somebody
has
the
particular
skill
set
that
we're
needing
or
looking
for
in
the
department,
and
if
we
can
afford
it
in
the
budget,
we
would
be
able
to
offer
them
up
to
an
additional
five
years
of
service,
dropping
them
into
a
higher
Pace
scale.
E
Think
that
that
would
be
amenable
to
us.
I
am
curious
to
see
how
that
would
look
related
to,
for
example,
yeah.
Let's
say
they
capped
out
at
seven
the
seven
range-
and
you
wanted
to
add
them
to
five
years,
based
on
the
skill
set.
Where
would
that
put
them
on
this
pay
scale?
E
G
H
H
So,
just
to
summarize,
it
sounds
like
we're:
gonna
go
back
and
caucus
and
we're
going
to
come
up
with
a
counter
proposal.
That's
gonna
fit
within
our
budget
parameters
and
using
your
pay
structure
and.
D
H
Guys
would
like
to
see
certification
pay
as
one
of
your
priorities
and
we're
going
to
have
to
talk
about
that
I'm,
not
certain
that
we're
willing
to
go
down
that
route.
But
we
will.
We
certainly
appreciate
your
desire
there
and
we
can
discuss
it.
G
A
Think
what
I'm
struggling
with
is
the
certification
putting
the
money
in
the
certification
pay
as
opposed
to
wage
increases
right,
because
if
someone
wants
to
make
more
money
through
their
career,
the
certification
pay.
The
the
certification
is
just
part
of
that
progression,
so
I
think
I'm,
just
I'm
missing
something.
If
the
choice
at
the
end
of
the
day
is
certification,
pay
or
more
money
and
base
wages,
I
just
I'm,
not
I,
would
assume.
Although
I'm
hearing
something
different,
that
a
base
wage
increase
would
be
more
important
than
a
certification
pay
route.
A
Also
in
the
in
the
goal
of
Simplicity,
the
certification
round
is
kind
of
a
nightmare
to
administer,
but
so,
if
you
could
just
add
some
more
to
that,
just
so
I
get
a
better
understanding
of
where
you're
coming
from
sure.
E
So
currently
minus
this
last
higher
group
I
believe
is
the
first
group.
Everybody
had
some
educational
requirements
to
be
a
police
officer.
E
So
when
we
lowered
that
standard,
we
want
to
ensure
that
you
know
it's
important
for
our
members
to
have
people
standing
next
to
them
during
crisis
that
they
can
count
on
that
are
making
good
decisions,
people
that
are
not
going
to
put
us
on
the
front
page
of
the
paper
so
to
speak
because
they
make
good
decisions,
and
so
we
feel
that
currently
everybody
that's
working
there,
minus
the
new
hire
group,
that's
in
probation,
probably
meets
the
educational
requirements
for
those
incentive
Bays,
it's
the
people
that
are
following
on
that.
E
Don't
have
that
that
we
want
to
incentivize
that
they
continue
to
get
training
and
we
want
to
incentivize
that
they
also
continue
to
get
education
and
by
doing
the
post
certificates
it
does
incentivize
them
to
do
both
and
the
department
does
provide
training
but
really
to
accelerate
this
process.
You
have
to
seek
training
on
your
own
and
or
pay
for
training
potentially
on
your
own,
and
so
it
will
accelerate
that
process.
E
For
us,
and
so
I
know
that
you
know
we're
talking
about
a
third
of
a
percent
versus
a
third
of
a
percent
going
into
a
base
rate,
but
we
want
to
incentivize
our
people
to
get
the
extra
training
get
the
extra
education.
They
will
get
that
33
cents
out
of
every
dollar
that
we're
asking
for
by
doing
that,
if
they
decide
not
to
do
anything,
then
they're
not
going
to
get
it
and
I
think
that
it
is
a
slight
cost
savings.
I
know
the
administration
is
a
headache.
A
E
A
So
unless
there
are
any
other
questions,
I
think
we're
headed
back
to
caucus.
I
would
say:
we'll
try
30
minutes
again,
so
11
10.
G
Thank
you
just
one
quick
question
before
we
break
sorry,
this
is
the
proposed
compensation
package.
Do
we
do
we
have
other
proposals
out
there
that
we're
going
to
tackle
as
far
as
civil
service
or
anything
else,
I.
E
A
Will
you
have
a
civil
service
proposal?
We
do
okay.
E
E
H
F
I
can
repeat
that,
so
my
my
question
was
basically:
has
there
ever
been
an
instance
where
we've
specifically
gone
after
someone
for
a
specialty
skill,
officer-wise,
not
Command
Staff,
for
a
specific
skill
that
you
know,
we
would
need
to
do
this
for
and
give
that
extra
five
years.
Sure.
G
The
only
thing
that
I
can
think
of
and
I'm
not
sure
of
any
details,
because
I
wasn't
involved
in
that
decision-making
process,
but
when
we
were
going
through
the
issues
related
to
protests
in
the
summer
of
2020
and
and
thereafter
I
think
there
was
talk
about
trying
to
attract
a
skill
set
of
folks
who
had
had
experience
dealing
with
intelligence,
Gathering,
so
criminal
intelligence
unit
type
of
background,
as
well
as
folks
who
may
have
more
experience
in
dealing
with
crowd
management
and
those
those
types
of
skills.
G
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
if
we
ever
acted
on
that,
but
but
I
could
see
that
as
a
potential.
If
you
know
we
want
to
attract
a
certain
skill
set,
maybe
somebody
who
has
experience
dealing
with
human
trafficking
or
or
whatever
those
things
might
come
up
in
the
future.
I,
don't
know
that
we
can
foretell
what
they
might
be,
but
in
the
past
I
believe
we
did
have
some
discussion
about
targeting
people
with
intelligence,
related
capabilities
and
crowd
management,
related
capabilities.
Well,.
G
That's
why
I
say
I,
don't
know
if,
if
the
prior
Chief
exercised
that
or
if
that
factored
into
his
discretionary
offer
of
different
pay
skills
for
folks
coming
in
okay,.
F
Because
I
guess
my
when
I
look
at
that
is,
if
we're
we're
offering
that
half
time
up
to
14
years,
would
bring
somebody
in
at
seven
right
Max
and
then,
if
we
do
that
additional
five
at
the
chief's
discretion
we're
just.
It
seems
to
me
like
we're
going
back
to
what
we're
at
where.
G
Yes,
I
think
I
think
that
is
the
idea.
There
would
be
a
floor
that
nobody
would
go
below.
E
So
I
dropped
in
the
revised
Civil
Service
rules.
I
just
want
to
speak
to
it
briefly
and
I'll.
Let
you
guys
look
at
it.
It
we
tried
to
clean
it
up.
We
separated
the
sergeant
lieutenants
sections.
I
know
that
the
city
had
some
concerns
related
to
Lieutenant
testing.
I.
E
Think
all
we
asked
for
in
this
was
that
sergeants
the
opportunity
to
test
for
lieutenant
goes
to
sergeants
first,
and
should
nobody
pass
or
they
decline,
then
the
chief
has
a
discretion
to
open
it
up
to
outside
and
or
experience
officers.
We
moved
away
from
any
of
the
testing
portions
of
the
lieutenants
test
and
ultimately
just
try
to
clean
it
up
and
remove
stuff
that
is
already
in
policy,
but
refines
and
redefines
the
the
rules
from
the
previous
mou.
E
So
really
our
position,
like
I
said,
is
we
feel
the
department
should
allow
sergeants
to
test
before
going
outside.
If
no
sergeants
are
successful
at
that,
then
the
union
does
not
concern
whether
you
go
outside
or
experienced
and
we
removed
any
controls
related
to
the
testing
process.
We
think
the
testing
of
management
should
be
determined
by
the
chief,
and
we
really
have
no
say
in
it
other
than
it
needs
to
be
posted.
E
It
needs
to
be
declared
and
there
needs
to
be
a
review
process,
but
as
far
as
like,
because
the
sergeant
lieutenant
testing
were
kind
of
co-mingled
in
the
durations
and
that
whole
process
so
we're
stepping
back
from
that
and
giving
more
managerial
latitude
related
to
to
that.
We
still
do
think
that
the
members
that
test
for
sergeant
or
test
for
lieutenant
are
sergeants
and
those
are
our
members
and
we
still
want
to
protect
some
of
that.
E
But
really
all
we're
asking
for
is
the
protection
of
that
they'd,
be
given
the
opportunity
to
test
or
meet
those
qualifications
and
going
forward
so
I'll.
Let
you
guys
when
you
go
to
caucus,
take
a
review
of
this
and
then,
when
we
come
back,
we
can.
We
can
dull
into
it.
A
Just
a
quick
question:
did
you
make
any
changes
to
the
sergeant
testing
process
or
does
this
reflect
the
language
that's
in
place
today?
No.
E
We
we
did
make
some
testing
my
understanding
is.
The
department
wants
to
go
to
an
annual
test,
we're
open
to
whatever
duration,
the
city
or
the
department
really
wants
to.
If
it's
a
year,
that's
great,
if
it's
two
years
great,
if
it's
three
whatever
and
then
basically
cleaning
it
up,
we're
asking
for
a
360
degree,
evaluation
which
we've
started
doing
more
instead
of
a
Survey
Monkey,
and
so
it's
pretty
vague,
just
a
written
exam,
a
practical
exam
and
a
360.
E
I
think
we
would
have
to
Define
what
a
360
is
outside
of
that
there's
really
not
any
changes
to
the
sergeants
test.
It's
just
a
cleaner
look
and
a
more
cleaned
up
version.
E
Out
we
basically
just
said
that
we
left
in
that
the
chief
has
a
discretion
to
take
from
the
top
three.
The
list
is
basically
the
duration
of
whatever
was
determined,
and
you
know
that
that's
really
the
only
changes,
because
currently
it
said
you
know
the
list
is
for
so
long.
But
basically,
if
we're
going
to
test
for
a
year,
then
the
list
should
be
for
that
year.
Sure
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
our
heads
at
or
if
you
want
to
test
every
two
years.
That's
fine
with
us.
E
E
Yeah
we
felt
like
we
need
a
little
more
time
on
that
or
the
give
the
Chiefs
a
discretion
to
immediately
go
outside.
So
if
he
opens
it
up
to
senior
officers,
then
he
can
also
just
collect
with
somebody
from
the
outside.
If
that's
what's
necessary,
if
we
don't
have
people.
G
E
G
A
H
So
we're
gonna
get
back
to
you
on
Thursday
with
a
wage
proposal
with
an
economic
proposal,
but
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
during
this
caucus.
Talking
about
the
Civil
Service
proposal,
you
gave
us
and
we
have
a
response
to
that
and
kind
of
want
to
talk
through
that.
And
so,
if
Biff
received
what
I
sent
him
and
if
it's
in
the
folder,
then
we
can
pull
that
out.
H
H
H
We're
proposing
Sergeant
testing
shall
occur
on
an
as
needed
basis,
as
determined
by
the
chief
of
police
and
then
the
last
sentence.
Officers
with
five
years
of
consecutive
service
at
Boise,
Police
Department
are
eligible
to
be
promoted.
That
would
allow
them
to
test
before
they
hit
five
years,
but
they
wouldn't
be
promoted
until
they've.
G
For
a
little
more
background
on
that,
if
somebody's
you
know,
their
five-year
anniversary
is
January
7th,
but
the
test
is
on
January
5th.
We
could
allow
them
to
test,
even
though
they
haven't
been
there
five
years
as
long
as
they've
been
there
at
least
five
before
they're
promoted,
if
that
makes
sense,
yeah.
E
I
just
want
to
clarify
that,
so
you,
what
you're
saying
is:
if
January
is
my
anniversary
date
and
the
test
is
say,
my
anniversary
date
is
January
1st.
The
test
is
January
30th
I'm,
a
four-year
officer,
December.
E
Okay:
okay,
but
if
I'm
11
months
away
from
being
five
I
could
still
test
I,
guess
I'm,
just
trying
to
clarify
how
that
would
look
logistically
on,
because
the
I
would
the
test
is
eligible
till
for
a
year.
So
if
I
was
for,
if
I
tested
at
four
months
and
11
years,
I
could
still
test.
And
then
you
could
only
promote
me
at
the
fifth
year.
G
H
And
scrolling
down
to
D
from
our
perspective
on
that,
rather
than
try
to
set
forth
what
the
examination
process
is
going
to
be,
we've
got
the
language
in
C,
saying,
there's
going
to
be
a
committee
to
determine
the
matter
and
content
of
the
test,
and
you
had
proposed
I
think
the
current
current
language
says
there
would
be
one
there's
one
Union
member
at
least
one
on
the
committee,
and
you
had
changed
it
to
two
and
and
we're
okay
with
the
at
least
two
being
on
the
committee.
H
E
G
So
I
I
just
think
the
committee
who
comes
up
with
the
test
and
that's
represented
from
all
you
know
all
parts
of
the
department.
They
should
have
the
ability
to
decide
how
the
test
should
be
administered
and
scored,
and
that
that
committee
should
come
up
with
that
information
and
certainly
there's
there's
nothing
wrong
with
having
guidelines.
But
we
don't
have
spelled
out
what
a
360
evaluation
is.
We
don't
have
spelled
out
when
that
occurs.
G
Currently
we
have
the
written
and
the
oral
or
the
written
and
the
assessment,
and
then
the
ranking
happens,
and
then
the
Survey
Monkey,
if
you
will
in
the
past,
has
been
used
later
after
there's
an
opening,
I
just
think
changes
can
occur,
things
can
happen.
Needs
can
can
arise
that
we
should
be
flexible
and
agile
enough
to
be
able
to
respond
to,
and
have
a
committee
determine
that
rather
than
just
be,
it
shall
consist
of
three
segments
this
this
and
this
I.
E
Think
our
our
biggest
concern
is
how
that
will
be
scored
and
the
weighting
of
that
scoring
and
how
that
would
look
so
I'll
kind
of
pause
to
see
what
your
thoughts
are
on
that
so
currently
you
know
the
Practical
Examination
for
lack
of
a
better
terms
is
the
highest
weighted,
a
percentage
for
Success
on
that
test
and
the
you
know,
Survey
Monkey
currently
holds
less
value,
and
so
you
know
in
changing
these
we're
open,
but
I
have
to
also
be
able
to
articulate
to
the
body
why
we
are
precluding
that
from
future
from
future
status.
E
E
However,
we're
still
dealing
with
that-
and
you
know
we're
happy
to
have
you
but
you're
going
to
be
gone
and
we
don't
know
who's
coming
next,
so
we
they're
in
here
for
a
reason
because
of
past
abuses
and
so
we're
open
to
change,
but
we
we
really
have
to
kind
of
understand
it.
I
guess
is
my
my
point.
A
The
only
thing
I'd
add
to
that
the
in
the
city's
mind.
If
you're
going
to
increase
the
union
representation
on
the
panel,
then
you
have
the
ability
to
get
to
a
better
place.
There's
a
panel
in
terms
of
what's
weighed
and
what
the
testing
process
looks
like
as
a
p,
as
opposed
to
being
super
prescriptive
and
still
having
two
union
members
on
the
panel
and.
E
I
and
I
appreciate
that
Chief
Washburn.
At
the
same
time,
that
committee
makes
recommendations
and
ultimately
it's
the
chief
that
decides
whether
they'll
follow
those
recommendations
or
not,
and
so
the
level
of
protection.
Even
though
it's
two,
which
you
know
honestly,
we
just
think
that
gives
a
more
well-rounded
committee
to
have
two
on
there.
E
Instead
of
one
and
I
know,
that's
a
it's
an
immense
amount
of
work
to
put
these
tests
on
and
to
prepare
that,
and
so
it
you
know
that
was
kind
of
our
thought
process
behind
there,
but
I
I
can
understand
how
that
gives
us
a
little
more
control,
but
that's
just
a
control
and
a
recommendation
that
does
not
have
to
be
followed
and
there's
no
guarantees
for
us
on
that.
F
Past
I'd
like
to
ask
Chief
winegar
because
he's
been
at
the
department,
the
longest
with
everybody
sitting
at
the
table
has
the
way
it's
currently
written
with
the
examination
with
the
written
examination,
70
percent.
Basically,
everything
that's
lined
out
in
red.
Has
there
been
a
problem
with
that
in
the
past?
How
that
has
worked
since
you've
been
here?
F
G
Certainly
I
think
it's
fair
I
think
there
could
be
arguments
made
that
the
percentages
might
need
to
be
adjusted
up
or
down
one
way
or
the
other,
and
that,
depending
on
the
process
that
is
decided
upon
you,
you
may
want
to
give
more
weight
to
a
particular
exercise
than
than
is
spelled
out.
A
My
issue
is
the
things
aren't
defined
so
360
degree,
evaluation
process,
I,
I,
don't
know
what
that
means,
so
I'm,
not
sure.
Unless
the
we
establish
what
that
means,
I'm,
not
sure
how
we
know
how
it's
supposed
to
weigh
into
the
process.
The
city
would
prefer
this
language
to
be
stricken,
which
is
why
we
struck
it
and
you're
welcome
to
bring
a
counter
proposal.
A
E
Well,
based
on
yeah,
we
we
understand
that
360
and
when
I,
when
I
drop
this
in
here,
which
I
think
we
did
a
little
prematurely
just
to
try
to
get
some
some
work
done
in
the
breakout
sessions.
E
We
would
have
to
Define
that
and
we
would
be
open
to
a
discussion
on
defining
what
that
looks
like
and
having
input.
So
we
we
understand
that
there
are
some
vegaties
in
here
that
would
require
some
follow-on
language
to
Define,
certain
things
and
I
think
that's
just
part
of
that
negotiation
process.
E
Process
well,
I
think
I
think
my
I
think
our
position
is
that
if
we
had
some
documented
structure
that
did
give
a
latitude
for
the
committee
but
was
still
structured
and
we
understand.
Essentially
it's
going
to
be
this
thing
and
we
understand
what
it
looks
like
on
the
outside
that
the
components
of
it
could
be
determined
by
the
committee,
and
so
really
our
goal
is
to
create
a
structure
that
everybody
agrees
is
fair
and
then
let
the
committee
and
the
department
decide
how
that
test
really
plays
out.
E
So
that's
really
kind
of
what
we're
hoping
for
going
forward.
E
H
H
D
H
Include
the
oral
interviews,
practical
exercises
or
other
tasks,
as
the
committee
keeps
necessary,
we
took
out
the
part
about
the
360
degree
evaluation
process,
not
because
we're
opposed
to
it,
but
again,
because
the
committee
would
be
deciding
it
and
the
same
with
what
each
portion
of
the
test
is
worth,
how
it
should
be
weighted.
H
That's
that's
why
we
struck
through
Those
portions
of
it
and
in
age,
we're
simply
saying
the
ranking
should
be
established
on
an
eligibility
list
based
on
the
highest
score
and
again
the
committee
would
be
determining
the
waiting
and
so
and
what
the
actual
segments
of
the
test
would
improve.
F
H
At
the
language
of
the
existing
mou-
and
you
had
taken
out
a
couple
of
things-
one
was
a
candidate's
name.
The
current
language
says
the
candidate's
name
may
be
removed
from
the
eligibilities
to
bear
under
a
worker
agreement
due
to
Performance
issues.
You
would
have
taken
that
out
and
we
weren't
sure
why
you
were
taking
it
out.
We
stuck
it
back
in
I
think
you
had
also
taken
out
language
about
someone
who's
on
an
extended
illness
or
injury
leave
of
absence,
and
we
we
would
be
okay
with
removing
that
and
just
determining.
E
Right
so
I
think
I
I
think
to
give
you
some
historical
thoughts
on
the
under
work
agreement.
We
currently
require
a
supervisor's
evaluation
to
test
I
think
that's
the
we're
not
opposed
to
people
under
work
agreement.
It
seems
logical
to
me
that
if
I
was
a
supervisor
and
my
subordinate
was
under
a
work
agreement,
that
I
would
not
pass
them,
approve
them
for
testing
for
sergeant
until
those
issues
are
worked
out,
so
we're
not
opposed
to
leaving
it
in
there.
E
I
just
feel
like
it's
a
redundant
process
and
if
the
supervisor
is
doing
his
job
as
a
supervisor,
he
should
not
approve
a
subordinate
who's
under
a
work
agreement
due
to
Performance
from
from
testing.
So
we're
not
opposed
to
to
that
change,
but
that
was
kind
of
our
thought
process
and
removing
it.
H
Okay,
so
moving
on
so
moving
down
to
the
lieutenant
promotional
process.
This
is
an
area
where
we
we
feel
it
really
is
a
management
right,
and
so
we
would
simply
propose
to
have
language
saying
sergeants,
who
are
eligible
to
compete
for
promotions
to
Lieutenant
and
will
be
evaluated
in
the
same
manner
as
external
candidate.
E
So
the
the
language
related
to
posting
and
a
process
is:
why
is
the
city
opposed
to
that.
H
I
I
don't
know
that
we're
opposed
to
posting
the
the
process.
We
were
just
trying
to
get
through
this
today
and
it
was
simpler
to
to
strike
through
it,
but
I
I
think
we're
fine
with
posting
the
process
and
making
everyone
aware
of
the
process.
G
Yeah
we
just
we
just
felt
like
that's
a
Lieutenant's
process.
Certainly
sergeants
are
affected
by
that,
meaning
that
they're
eligible
to
to
compete
in
our
in
our
Viewpoint
and
obviously
we
would
have
to
make
that
process
known
to
them
and
and
post
it
and
let
them
be
aware
of
it
and
all
of
those
things.
But
we
just
felt
like
the
lieutenant
promotional
process,
really
isn't
part
of
the
Union's
responsibility
to
to
negotiate
over
the
terms
of
that
process.
Yeah.
E
And
that
that's
been
a
reoccurring
theme
that
the
city
says
his
management
rights,
but
the
city
gave
those
management
rights
up,
and
so
the
current
system
is
the
system
where
we're
involved
with
which
includes
lieutenants
testing
process,
which
does
affect
our
sergeants
as
members
and
we're
trying
to
respect
the
management
right
side
of
that
as
best
we
can
with
still
providing
protection
for
our
sergeants
testing
for
lieutenant
and
then
once
that
process
is
underway
or
they
break
and
promoted
they're
somebody
else's
to
protect.
E
G
E
Fair,
depending
on
who's,
applying
it
So,
currently
sergeants
the
way
it's
written.
The
mou
is
written
now
is
the
department
has
to
test
with
sergeants
first
before
going
external,
so
that
would
be
removed
under
this
language.
Correct.
G
G
As
well
as
the
the
language
would
be
removed
in
the
current
one,
referring
to
you
have
to
be
a
sergeant
for
four
years
and
you're,
proposing
five
and
Kuwait's.
Currently
written
internal
officers
have
to
be
there
for
six
years
consecutively,
you're
proposing
ten
those.
Basically
all
of
that
would
go
away
and
just
say,
sergeants
are
eligible
to
be
evaluated
for
promotion
and
they'll
be
evaluated
in
the
same
manner
as
external
candidates.
Just
simplifying
the
whole.
H
So
under
the
voluntary
transfer
we
I
changed
this
language
under
a
to
Simply,
say
the
testing
and
selection
selection
process
will
will
be
determined
by
the
chief
of
police
or
his
or
her
designee,
and
then
the
second
sentence
candidates
will
be
able
to
review
and
receive
feedback
on
their
scores
and
performance
from
this
process.
D
H
E
So
with
the
new
discipline
Matrix,
we
feel
like
this
is
kind
of
an
overlap,
and
so
we
basically
said
you
know
alleged
misconduct
being
disciplined
twice.
All
we
really
said
was
that
discipline
is
really
in
the
in
the
discipline
Matrix
and
in
the
policy
side.
E
All
we
really
think
that
should
be
in
the
CLA
is
that
you
can't
be
disciplined
twice
for
the
same
bad
misconduct,
and
so
you
know
we
currently
already
have
a
mou
related
to
a
discipline,
Matrix
and
changes
to
that
discipline
process,
and
it
seemed
like
the
version
of
the
CLA
mou-4
Civil
Service
kind
of
duplicated
that
and
we
feel
like
really
our
only
protection
that
we
demand
is
that
you
can't
be
in
the
contract
that
you
can't
be
double
jeopardied
for
the
same
conduct
and
we
think
that
all
the
discipline
really
is
in
the
policy
and
I
think
that's
currently
where
it
is.
D
H
G
Letter
C
in
the
original
mou
talks
about
no
member
of
the
police
department
shall
participate
in
any
labor
strike
against
the
city
of
Boise
or
in
any
manner
fail
to
observe
and
obey
the
lawful
orders
of
any
of
his
or
her
supervisor
Superior
officers.
Such
misconduct
shall,
upon
sufficient
proof,
be
grounds
for
discipline
up
to
and
including
dismissal
discharge
determination
from
employment
with
the
city
of
Boise.
G
You
intentionally
removed
that
as
well
and
everything
you're
saying
is
just
handled
in
the
discipline
Matrix.
So.
E
The
inability
to
strike
and
all
that
is
handled
the
opening
paragraphs
of
the
actual
CLA,
so
we
can
just
eliminate
all
of
that.
I
think
that
it
only
needs
to
be
in
one
place,
I
mean
if
you
really
want
to
restate
it
in
here.
We
could
probably
do
that.
I
was
just
trying
to
clean.
H
Okay,
I
think
the
city
had
a
hard
stop
at
one
today
and
we're
at
one
o'clock.
I,
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else
that
we
want
to
talk
about
right
now,.
E
So,
essentially,
just
to
clarify
the
city
is
going
to
return
on
Thursday
with
new
Financial
numbers
and
a
proposal.
Yes,.
H
E
We'll
have
time
to
go
through
this
and
and
and
see
where
we're
agreeable
and
where
we're
not
and
come
back
good.
That.