►
From YouTube: PRBH 06 17 2020
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
A
Do
want
to
just
mention
a
couple
things
for
the
sake
of
the
board
and
for
those
at
today's
hearing
before
we
get
started,
and
then
we
will
I'll
turn
it
over
to
the
acting
chair
for
today,
mr.
Torrance
Goodwin,
so
the
personnel
review
board.
The
mission
of
the
board,
of
course,
is
to
hear
us
to
assure
that
merit
system
employees
have
received
due
process
and
proper
treatment
when
they,
when
they've,
received
significant
disciplinary
actions.
A
A
In
terms
of
the
board's
responsibilities,
there
is
a
requirement
that
there
be
a
quorum
and
a
quorum
must
consist
of
at
least
three
board
members,
and
we
do
have
a
quorum
today.
So
we
are
able
to
proceed
with
the
hearing.
I
will
also
mention
that
the
members
of
the
board
are
subject
to
the
code
of
ethics
contained
in
the
city's
Charter.
As
such,
they
may
refuse
themselves
if
they,
if
they
find
that
they
have
a
conflict
of
interest
that
is
compatible
with
their
involvement.
A
So
the
standard
of
review
for
the
personnel
review
board
the
board's
review
is
made
in
accordance
with
the
following
standards
there
or
a
couple
of
standards.
They
include
adverse
actions
that
are
appealed
to
the
board.
They
will
be
affirmed
unless
they
are
found
to
constitute
an
abuse
of
discretion.
A
The
board
members
are
not
to
substitute
their
personal
judgement
nor
second-guess
two
decision-makers.
That's
the
decision
that's
been
made
by
the
police
department.
There
are
two
grounds
that
the
board
may
properly
reverse
a
decision,
which
is
appeal,
the
first
being
the
decision-maker
failed
to
take
into
consideration
the
facts
or
the
logic
pertaining
to
the
decision
to
the
decision
in
number.
Two,
the
decision-makers
arbitrarily
are
unreasonably
departed
from
clearly
stated
employment
or
other
applicable
policies
of
the
City
of
Columbus
or
the
Department
of
Human
Resources.
This
is
not
a
court
of
law.
A
B
A
B
A
E
F
B
Thank
you.
The
employees
at
other
departments
and
their
representatives
or
attorneys
will
limit
their
presentation
to
30
minutes
unless
the
time
is
extended
by
a
majority
of
the
sitting
board.
Thereafter,
the
personnel
Review
Board
may
allow
for
time
for
each
party
to
ask
questions
of
the
other.
The
personnel
Review
Board
may
also
ask
clarifying
questions,
and
the
employees
and
the
Columbus
consolidated
government
will
each
be
allowed
three
minutes
claud's
closing
remarks.
At
this
time
we
will
swear
in
any
witnesses
who
will
provide
testimony
all
witnesses.
Please
stand
and
raise
your
right
hand.
B
B
G
Ccg
would
object
to
the
Evoque
of
the
invoking
of
the
rule
of
sequester
sequestration.
Excuse
me,
the
rule
of
sequestration
is
a
rule
of
evidence.
The
rules
to
this
hearing
clearly
provide
that
the
rules
of
evidence
do
not
apply
in
this
hearing
now.
Ccg
does
not
object
to
the
sequestering
of
any
witnesses
that
are
not
necessary
and
by
necessary
I
mean
my
City
representative
chief
borne
and
then
miss
Halliwell,
who
obviously
needs
to
be
here
to
conduct
the
hearing
and
I
believe
Sheila
Sheila
has
also
been
who's
also
necessary
here.
G
F
To
add
at
that
that,
although
the
rules
of
evidence
don't
apply
due
process
is
mentioned
in
the
policy
and
procedure
of
this
board
at
least
four
times
and
due
process
does
require
fairness
and
had
a
fairness,
miss
Halliwell
miss
risk
for
witnesses
to
this
matter.
They
heard
his
fair
treatment
report
appeal.
So
in
order
for
them
to
sit
in
here
and
oversee
the
hearing
would
be
a
conflict
that
would
violate
his
due
process.
Rights,
I.
G
F
The
fairness
is,
there's
a
direct
conflict.
You
cannot
be
an
investigator
of
a
crime
and
then
try
the
case.
There's
a
conflict
because
you
will
be
called
as
a
witness
to
testify,
she's
being
called
as
a
witness
to
testify,
but
is
overseeing
the
hearings.
She's
testifying
in
this
number
for
in
the
rules,
States
informal
rules
of
decorum
will
be
preserved
to
promote
fairness
and
truth,
finding
I
think
in
order
to
promote
fairness
and
truth
finding
we
need
to
protect
any
potential
conflicts
that
may
arise
throughout
this
case.
I.
G
Believe
that
I've
made
the
position
of
CCG
clear
and
that
fairness
does
not
and
due
process
does
not
require
the
sequestration
of
witnesses.
It
does
require
that
mr.
Wilson
be
allowed
to
examine
any
witnesses
that
he
wants
during
his
time
that
he
be
allowed
to
state
his
position
and
his
side
of
the
story
before
the
board.
But
we
we
do
disagree
with
mr.
Hillier.
On
that
point.
H
And
I
was
not
introduced
earlier,
but
I'm
Lucy,
chef,
toll
assistant
city
attorney
and
I
am
here
to
advise
the
personnel
review
board
and
it
is
within
the
board's
discretion
to
order
the
hearing,
but
I
do
want
to
advise
you
that
you
are
not
required
to
strictly
adhere
to
the
formal
rules
of
evidence
and
as
long
as
you
feel,
the
procedures
are
fair.
H
B
B
G
F
Members
of
the
board,
if
this
was
a
simple
issue
we
wouldn't
be
here
today,
it's
not
as
simple
as
she
made
it
out
to
be.
She
has
a
packet
in
front
of
you,
that's
over
80
pages
long.
It's
not
it's
not
like
we're
going
over
one
drug
test
here
and
I.
Just
asked
out
of
fairness
to
mr.
Wilson
that
we
have
enough
time
to
examine
witnesses.
That's
the
only
reason
I'm
asking
for
an
additional
30
minutes.
B
Okay,
at
this
time,
I
would
agree
with
the
city
attorney
and
that
this
is
a
simple
case,
but
I
would
ask
for
the
you
know.
We
want
to
put
a
motion
on
the
floor
to
extend
that
time
at
this
time
there
there's
no
motion,
so
the
time
is
not
extended,
but
I
would
access
we
get
along
in
the
process
towards
the
end.
If
you
could
bring
that
motion
back
up
or
bring
that
request
back
up,
and
we
can
address
it
at
that
particular
time.
B
F
B
F
I
I
Was
later
down,
the
road
I
think
it
was
the
24th
of
February.
We
had
a
due
process
hearing
in
my
conference
room
at
the
police
department,
where
we
had
mr.
Wilson
or
officer
Wilson
in
to
talk
with
him
in
reference
to
that
failed
test.
To
tell
him
the
information
that
the
city
had
the
accusations
that
we
had
and
to
get
information.
Let
him
reply
to
those
accusations.
B
F
F
I
F
I
I
F
F
F
F
I
F
J
F
F
F
F
I
F
F
I
I
F
F
K
K
F
K
F
F
F
M
L
All
right
we
were
out
of
town.
In
a
conference,
the
news
conference
I
had
a
Chiefs
conference.
The
majority
of
the
staff
was
we'd,
received
information
from
agent
Walker
right
that
we
had
a
positive
drug
test.
We
talked
about
it
at
the
scene
that
happened
in
our
department,
very
often
at
least
not
since
I've
been
in
a
supervisory
position.
L
We
decided
at
that
time
to
put
him
on
administrative
leave
with
pay
till
we
could
get
back
to
town
to
kind
of
get
our
arms
wrapped
around
it
and
you
know
not
doing
any
harm
to
the
employee.
We
got
back
into
town
and
major
Barker
right
in
firms
me
that
she'd
received
notification
from
this
wreath
to
Holloway
the
director
of
our
HR
department
that
employees
that
we
were
looking
at
the
drug
test
or
appealing
the
drug
test
were
put
on
administrative
leave
without
pay
not
with
pay
so
based
on
the
instructions
from
mr.
L
Halliwell
I
put
him
on
administrative
leave
without
pay.
I
think
he
got
four
days
of
live,
pay
that
he
probably
shouldn't
have,
but
we
didn't.
We
didn't
take
that
back.
We
just
left
it
with
you,
but
you
know
being
out
of
town.
We
erred
on
the
side
of
the
employee,
so
the
administrative
leave
with
pay
without
pay
was
that
the
instructions
of
the
HR
director
at
the
City
of
Columbus
right.
F
J
L
L
F
J
F
F
M
F
F
Says:
marijuana
metabolites
retests,
yes,.
A
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
A
F
You're
aware
of
the
polygraph
policy
we've
sent
that
in
the
letter-
and
you
responded
to
that
as
well.
He
said
that
his
letter
of
Appeal
claims
that
the
police
department
failed
to
consider
other
means
of
investigation,
but
you
are
aware
that
the
policy
says
that's
a
means
of
investigation,
correct.
A
F
F
A
F
F
H
You
know
ask
that
you
in
your
motion
includes
some
guidance
as
to
how
much
time
was.
B
F
N
F
N
E
E
E
E
E
N
F
N
E
E
E
N
F
E
N
F
N
E
F
F
E
F
F
O
O
F
F
O
F
G
Despite
mr.
Wilson's
efforts
to
make
this
issue
complicated,
it's
really
not
it's
pretty
much
as
simple
as
it
gets.
Mr.
Wilson
failed
a
random
drug
test.
He
tested
positive
for
marijuana.
The
those
test
results
as
positive
test
results
are
supported
by
in
a
number
of
different
ways.
There
are
the
lab
report
of
the
tests
itself,
which
I
believe
excuse
me.
G
G
That
test
actually
about,
let
me
go
through
these
first
before
I
break
it
down
a
little
bit.
So
there's
the
the
lab
report
for
the
test
itself.
You
also
have
an
MRO
analysis
form,
which
is
also
included
under
that
tab.
Five
of
your
packets
as
well
and
an
MRO
analysis
form
is
a
it's
a
formal
analysis
conducted
by
a
certified
MRO,
an
individual
review
officer
who
is
certified
to
review
drug
tests
and
the
accuracy
of
drug
tests
and
the
possible
reasons
for
a
positive
drug
test
result.
That
could
be
other
reasons.
That's
their
job.
G
That's
what
they
do.
So
we
have
the
MRO
analysis
form
that
was
conducted
on
the
positive
drug
test.
You
have
a
verification
because,
throughout
mr.
Wilson's,
fair
treatment
requests
for
this
hearing
and
and
throughout
this
process
he
has
made
mentioned
repeated
mention
of
the
the
test
lab
result
number
of
a
30.
G
There
is
an
email
exchange
where
riether,
Halliwell,
actually
emailed
jack
sure
it's
also
included
under
tab
5
of
your
PIV
packets,
where
riether
actually
emailed
jack,
sure
doctor
sure
who
is
the
MRO
analysis
to
get
some
clarification
on
that
30
mg.
/
ml
lab
test
result
to
make
sure
that
it
was
enough,
because
this
question
had
brought
up
so
and
in
that
email
exchange.
Dr.
sure
clearly
says
yes,
that
30
ng/ml
number
was
for
the
confirmation
test
and
we'll
get
into
that.
G
What
that
means
in
a
second,
but
he
he
affirmed
that
that
was
enough,
that
it
was
above
the
cutoff
and
it
was
indeed
positive.
In
that
conversation,
it
was
again
verified
by
a
split
sample
test
that
was
done,
and
the
city
ordered
that
at
no
charge
to
Wilson
in
an
effort
to
further
verify
this
positive
test,
and
that
has
been
given
to
you
by
mr.
Wilson's
camp
Council
as
I
believe
he
said
it
was
Exhibit
C
is
that
is
that
correct?
This
split
sample?
G
G
F
B
F
Chairman
but
she's,
the
attorney
and
I
can't
really
cross-examine
her
in
order
to
preserve
my
clients,
rights
when
I
feel
I
need
to
object
when
something's
been
done
and
properly,
and
so
I
just
like
to
note
that
the
case
law
is
clear.
It's
the
exact
same
case
as
this
Neal
versus
Augusta
Richmond
County.
They
stated
that
the
right
to
confrontation
does
apply
in
this
administrative
proceeding
because
he
does
have
a
property
interest
in
his
job.
F
Furthermore,
when
the
only
piece
of
evidence
in
a
case
is
hearsay,
regardless
of
what
the
board's
rules
say,
is
not
enough
to
terminate
someone
and
so
we're
getting
into
this
medical
resource
officer,
that
could
have
been
called
as
a
witness
to
testify
today
that
purport
prepared
a
analysis
form
where
he
checked
a
box
and
signed
his
name.
If
he
wants
to
come
testify
to
that,
he
should
have
been
called
as
a
witness.
He
has
the
right
to
confront
anyone,
that's
making
allegations
against
him.
This
is
the
sole
allegation
is.
F
G
And
in
response
to
that,
mr.
Wilson
has
known
of
dr.
surer
share.
Excuse
me,
since
February,
since
this
drug
test
came
out,
he
talked
he
spoke
to
dr.
Shara
himself.
He
has
known
about
the
importance
of
dr.
Shara,
as
a
witness
has
had
the
same
opportunity
as
a
city
to
speak
to
him.
He
is
not
a
city
employee,
so
the
city's
ability
to
get
him
here
would
be
the
same.
G
F
B
F
What's
the
explain
that
it's
in
the
case
and
I
have
copies
of
the
cases
well
for
the
board?
It
basically
says
that
the
board,
the
city
has
the
burden
of
proof
and,
yes,
traditional
rules
of
evidence
don't
apply,
but
when
the
only
piece
of
evidence
proffered
by
the
side
making
the
accusation
is
hearsay,
it
had
like
zero,
appropriate
value
whatsoever,
and
so
yes.
O
F
Reports
are
hearsay
that
can
be
waited
for
pursuant
to
these
rules,
but
he's
not
the
accuser.
It's
explicit
that
the
significance
of
Neil's
interest
in
the
case
Neil
versus
Augusta
Richmond
County
in
retaining
public
employment
should
not
be
minimized.
Our
courts
have
recognized
the
severity
of
depriving
a
person
of
their
means
of
livelihood
where
he
says
the
court
says
the
lab
results
are
hearsay.
Hearsay
is
without
probative
value
to
establish
any
fact
we
have
held
that
your
say
is
not
appropriate
evidence.
Even
in
an
administrative
proceeding
other
than
a
lab
report.
F
There
is
no
factual
basis
for
the
medical
review
officers,
testimony
that
he
tested
positive
for
marijuana.
So
in
this
case
the
the
MRO
actually
testified.
The
MRO
testified
in
this
court
of
appeals
case
in
this
case
he's
not
even
here
to
testify,
and
this
court
says
it
wouldn't
work.
Anyways
and
I've.
Just
I
can
provide
you
as
copies
of
the
cases
if
the
board
would
would
like,
but
the
case
law
is
clear,
insert
was
denied
from
the
Court
of
Appeals
on
this
case.
G
H
Right,
basically,
you
are
not
obligated
to
sit
here
and
exclude
evidence
from
your
transcript.
It
can
be
tendered
in
this
informal
proceeding.
You
can
consider
it
if
it
becomes
if
it
were
to
become
the
only
thing
that
supported
your
determination.
Then
the
fact
that
it
was
an
improper
piece
of
evidence
could
be
argued
later
before
a
judge,
but
that's
not
where
you
need
to
go
today
today.
You
simply
take
it
in
and
consider
it
for
what
you
think
it
to
be
worth
would
be
my
advice.
B
G
And-
and
my
I
say
with
regard
to
that,
what
we
are
here
for
that
the
affidavit
is
merely
to
help
an
understanding
of
an
analysis
of
the
drug
test
report.
What
we
are
here,
analyzing
is
chief
Warren's
decision
to
terminate
and
what
he
had
with
regard
to
that.
What
he
had
and
the
reason
he
did
terminate,
which
he
has
testified
and
will
testify
to
was
the
positive
drug
test
which
is
as
it
is.
G
G
We
move
forward
so
along.
We
have
all
this
that
we
have
the
positive
drug
test,
that's
the
basis
for
the
termination.
Now,
if
you
look
at
the
drug
and
alcohol
policy
because
we're
one
of
the
reasons
we're
here
and
the
main
reason
is
to
see
if
policy
was
applied
properly,
the
disciplinary
action
page
of
the
drug
and
alcohol
policy
excuse
me
under
Section,
seven
states
that.
G
It
is
section
for
disciplinary
actions
of
that
policy.
It
states,
while
dismissal
from
employment
will
occur.
In
most
cases,
the
following
factors
must
be
considered
prior
to
taking
any
personnel
action.
Strong
mitigating
circumstances
may
provide
an
opportunity
for
disciplinary
action.
Other
than
dismissal
and
one
of
the
guidelines
shall
apply.
Our
public
safety
personnel
will
be
held
to
a
higher
standard,
simply
put
public
safety
personnel.
Police
officers
cannot
fail
drug
tests.
It
is
there
held
to
a
higher
standard
because
of
what
they
do.
It
just
can't
happen
now.
G
The
termination
of
mr.
Wilson,
based
on
that
positive
drug
test,
is
in
line
with
that
policy,
and
it
is
in
line
with
the
existing
drug
and
alcohol
policy.
Now
I
could
just
stop
there,
but
I'm
not
going
to
I.
Will
I'm
gonna
call
chief
Boren
and
talk
to
him
a
little
bit
about
his
decision.
If
you
will
said
chief
borne
together.
I
I
I
We
were
in
a
in
a
school
mandated
school
for
certification
for
our
basically
our
jobs,
so
I
did
not
have
time
at
that
point
in
time
to
sit
down
and
critique
everything
that
went
on
with
the
job
I
mean
with
the
positive
drug
test,
so
to
err
on
the
side
of
caution
and
to
try
to
take
care
of
the
employee.
At
that
time
we
decided
to
put
him
on
a
leave
with
pay,
so
he
would
not
be
out
of
any
money
until
we
could
get
back
then,
and
take
a
look
at
it.
G
I
Was
we
had
an
opportunity
to
talk
with
major
right?
We
had
an
opportunity
to
talk
to
miss
Halliwell
in
reference
to
the
circumstance
to
the
city
policies
and
believe
it
or
not.
You
can
find
this
hard
to
believe,
but
we
don't
run
up
on
a
lot
of
police
officers
that
proved
positive
on
a
drug
test,
so
at
that
time,
I
did
not
know
that
if
a
positive
drug
drug
test
is
obtained,
then
that
individual
is
placed
away
without
pay
pending
the
disposition
of
a
show
cause
hearing
to
terminate.
So
yes,
I
made
that
decision
so.
G
G
I
I
G
I
I
G
I
I
I
I
G
I
G
G
A
G
A
Typically,
when
an
employee
has
tested
positive
under
the
random
drug
testing
portion
of
the
policy,
when
an
employee
has
tested
positive,
that
employee
is
department
where
they
work
is
notified
and
in
accordance
with
the
policy
that
employee
that
department
will
place
the
employee
own
suspension
without
pay,
allowing
the
employee
an
opportunity
to
due
process
to
state.
Why
or
to
contest
the
test
results.
G
A
Know
the
exact
date,
but
I
receive
a
call
from
major
I
and
the
police
department.
Regarding
mr.
Wilson
and
in
our
conversation,
I
was
told
that
mr.
Wilson
was
placed
on
leave
with
pain
and
at
that
time,
I
informed.
The
major
right
of
the
alcohol
and
drug
policy
which
states
that,
when
an
employee
tests,
positive,
they
are
to
be
placed
there
to
be
suspended,
is
what
the
policy
there's
to
be
suspended
without
pay
pending
termination.
A
G
G
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
email
exchange
you
had
with
dr.
sharer
and
that
is
included
under
tab
5
of
your
PRB
packets
at
some
point
during
this
territory,
treatment
process
wilson
has
disputed
that
that
the
test
level
of
the
drug
in
his
system
at
30
mg,
/
ml,
was
insufficient
or
not
enough
to
be
a
positive
drug
test.
Right,
yes,
did
you
reach
out
to
dr.
sure
to
ask
him
about
that?
I
did
and
what
did
dr.
sure
tell
you
in
response.
A
I
I
C
G
G
G
G
O
At
the
time
the
drug
testing
policy
of
the
Columbus
consolidated
going,
we
had
just
started,
they
had
just
implemented
the
drug
testing
back
in
the
early
90s
and
I.
Think
I
may
have
been
one
of
the
first
to
test
positive
or,
if
not
the
first
one
of
the
very
first
few,
and
we
were
new
the
procedure
so
that
particular
day
and
again
it
was
a
totally
new
policy
throughout
the
whole
consolidated
government.
So
procedures
had
it
been
gone
through
multiple
times
and
there
hadn't
been
a
yeah
or
a
regimen
of
you
know
this
activity.
O
So
when
I
tested
positive
from
an
accident
the
drug
test,
any
drug
test
we
generally
had
from
the
police
department
were
duis
and
things
like
that
of
that
nature
and
people
tested
it
hospital.
All
those
results
were
generally
sent
straight
into
the
core
score
so
and
in
the
time
that
I,
when
I
got
or
was
involved
in
accident,
we
didn't
nobody
even
thought
of
the
policy
at
that
particular
time.
I
was
brought
down
to
the
police
department,
while
they
officer
did
the
accident
and
they
had
to
check
out
another
vehicle.
O
I
left
and
went
back
out
on
my
shift
and
then
when
I
was
getting
off,
I
think
the
information
was
given
to
the
shift
supervisor
supervisor
brought
up
the
fact
that
hey
did
we
take
him,
you
know
get
him
drug
tested,
cuz,
that's
the
new
policy
and
they
said.
Oh
yes,
so
they
called
me
told
me
to
divert
to
go
to
a
medical
center
and
that's
where
I
had
a
drug
test
and
then
the
results
of
it.
We
were
supposed
to
get
back
as
policy.
O
It
was
at
the
time
was
five
to
seven
days
to
get
the
results
back,
and
it
was
three
months
later
that
I
was
notified,
because
the
drug
testing
kit
went
down
to
the
recorders
court.
Somebody
happened
to
be
looking
through
a
quarters
court
files
and
and
recognized
the
name
and
knew
that
this
was
a
test
that,
with
so
I'm
notified
three
months
later,
and
it
took
me
a
while
to
start
kind
of
thinking
about
that
day.
But
then
yes,
I,
did
remember
what
I'd
done
that
day
about
four
days.
G
G
F
F
B
B
N
B
N
B
I
B
I
B
So,
just
to
make
clear
the
policy
of
the
police
department
and
the
city
is
that
if
an
employee
test
positive
for
any
narcotic
they're
terminated
city
policy,
correct
okay,
so
there's
no
level
of
you
know
if
he
tested
below
a
certain
level
for
marijuana
that
he
would
keep
his
job
versus
he
test
above
that
certain
level.
Okay,.
A
Respond
to
that
the
policy
explains
it
the
test
levels
or
in
the
drug
and
alcohol
policy.
Yes,
they're
high
and
lows:
there's
a
cut-off
level
and
that's
explained
in
the
drug
and
alcohol
policy
for
the
barriers,
especially
for
the
various
types
of
drugs
that
are
tested
for
and
in
the
case
of
marijuana.
There
is
a
cut-off
level.
F
Chairman
to
clarify
briefly
the
policy,
the
departmental
drug
testing
policy
before
8.5
I
believe
it's
in
the
packet
they
submitted
to
you
and
if
it's
not
I
can
provide
the
board
with
it.
But
it
reads
that
employees,
testing
positive,
shall
be
subject
to
disciplinary
action
up
to
and
including
discharge
all
employees
not
terminated
following
a
positive
test
shall
be
placed
on
probation
for
one
year
following
the
date
of
testing,
so
it
does
afford
other
options
other
than
termination
and
I.
Think
that's
what
I
hope
that
better
answers.
B
I
C
I
I
I
B
I
C
C
D
Maybe
attorneys
Johnson,
the
affidavit
from
dr.
Shara
indicates
that
he
notified
mr.
Wilson
via
telephone
at
8:20
a.m.
on
Monday
February.
The
10th
excuse
me
because,
and
but
it
also
says,
on
the
MRO
analysis,
form
that
the
patient
said
he'll
bring
his
drugs
on
page
three
of
the
affidavit
dr.
Sheeler
says
he
asked
him
if
he
could
provide
any
justification
for
the
positive
test
result
and
Wilson
could
not,
but
then,
on
the
MRO
analysis
form
dr.
Shara
records
that
the
patient
said:
he'll
bring
his
drugs,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
which
it
is.
D
G
D
N
N
N
N
Have
ma'am,
to
be
honest
with
you
I'm,
a
very
proactive
officer
during
the
time
that
I
had
that
I
took
that
random
drug
screen.
I
made
two
felony
marijuana
cases
that
same
week,
one
of
them
possibly
involved
in
THC
oil,
but
at
the
time
that
was
not
what
I
was
thinking.
I
didn't
know
that
you
can
that's
a
possibility.
You
can
contract
that
during
contact
or
anything
like
that.
I
have
never
used
narcotics
in
my
life.
That
is
the
only
explanation
that
I
could
give
them.
N
Did
not
bring
that
up
to
the
chief
at
the
time.
I
had
no
idea
that
that
would
be
a
reason
of
why
it
would
be
in
my
system.
It's
not
like
it.
You
know
brushed
in
my
face
or
anything
like
that.
I
just
came
in
contact
with
it
and
I'll
again
only
thing
that
I
could
say
is
that
I
don't
do
narcotics,
I
don't
do
drugs?
N
N
Due
process
hearing
was
February,
24th
I
was
called
at
12:00,
approximately
12:00
that
afternoon
on
February
24th
and
told
that
I
had
a
meeting
with
the
chief
at
3
o'clock.
That
was
at
the
time
that
I
even
notified
them
that
my
attorney
could
I
have
my
attorney
with
me
and
they
had
to
make
calls
to
make
it.
So
my
attorney
could
come
to
the
due
process.
Hearing
I
received
no
notice
prior
to
that
day
and
had
placed
that
call
to
you.
It
was
captain.
Ron
are.
B
B
F
F
You're,
not
given
a
polygraph
you're
not
allowed
to
get
an
independent
drug
test,
you
can't
contest'
it
it's
impossible
and
when
I
stood
up
earlier
and
I
discussed,
it
was
hearsay.
It's
because
it
is
not
just
one
piece
of
paper
not
to
the
test.
The
first
test,
the
MRO
did
not
perform
that
test
on
his
urine.
The
MRO
filled
out
this
sheet
of
paper
that
was
referred
to
earlier
and
on
that
sheet
of
paper
it
says
that
mr.
Wilson
said
he
was
going
to
bring
his
prescriptions.
Yes,
they
never
followed
up
on
that.
F
But
there's
another
interesting
part
to
this
right
there
under
lab
results.
It
says,
review
chain
of
custody
documents,
he
checked
the
box
and
then
checked
acceptable.
We
don't
have
a
chain
of
custody
and
that's
extremely
important
because
he
cited
himself.
He
doesn't
know
how
you
can
ask
someone
a
million
times
while
they
felt
a
drug
test,
but
if
they
didn't
use
drugs
they
don't
know
how
they
failed.
F
And,
yes,
the
cutoff
was
15,
that's
a
very
specific
test,
that's
a
very
specific
test
and
that
you
heard
throughout
this
testimony
today
that
people
just
kept
referring
to
it
as
letters,
because
no
one
here
knows
what
it
means.
No
one
here
knows
what
it
actually
means.
That's
why
someone
should
have
came
to
testify
about
it.
That's
why
mr.
Wilson
shouldn't
have
an
opportunity
to
question
whoever
it
was.
F
The
split
sample
had
not
been
tested.
Yet
when
he
checked
off
on
the
chain
of
custody
in
his
email,
February
20th,
these
emails
were
sent
February
20th
to
the
21st.
He
says
we
had
a
tremendously
difficult
time
and
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
the
lab,
getting
them
to
run
that
split
sample
their
routine
with
federal
testing.
F
Ie
do
t
drug
testing,
but
sending
in
and
the
ordering
of
a
split
sample
on
non
federal,
Nandi
OT
samples
is
very
unusual
and
rarely
seen
the
lab
had
trouble,
apparently,
with
the
accession
numbers
identifying
the
two
different
tubes
in
a
split
sample,
they're
supposed
to
be
one
two
one,
two
just
one.
There
shouldn't
be
a
problem
identifying
two
separate
tubes.
Now
in
the
the
lab
report
in
the
affidavit
they
state
the
very
last
page,
the
very
last
page
of
the
affidavit.
The
MRO
says
that
he
got
that
information
from
a
lab
technician.
F
The
problem
with
that
is,
he
says
it
was
tested
in
two
different
labs.
That's
why
they
were
different
I.
Ask
that
you
look
at
my
exhibits
that
I've
submitted
a
and
C
they're
submitted
in
the
same
lab,
the
bottom
of
the
page
of
a
and
C
it
was
performed
on
the
same
floor,
the
same
location
in
Atlanta
at
the
same
lab
there
shouldn't
have
been
two.
There
was
a
mistake
and
nobody
investigated.
Okay.
G
G
Regardless
of
the
amount
of
drug
in
his
system,
the
test
was
still
positive.
He
was
unable
to
provide
an
explanation
for
that.
He
didn't
could
not
direct
he
well.
He
did
not
direct
the
chief
to
anything
he
possibly
could
have
eaten.
As
he
said,
he
did
not
refer
to
this
drug
bus.
He
apparently
did
that
they
could
have
investigated
or
considered
that
as
an
explanation
at
the
time
of
the
termination
decision,
he
did
not
submit
the
polygraph
until
after
the
chief
had
made
his
termination
decision.
G
Seven
days
later,
from
the
initial
test,
now
anything
could
happen.
We
the
separate,
independent
drug
tests,
regardless
of
not
allowing
it
on
policy
to
has
no
reflection
on
the
level
of
the
drug
that
was
in
his
system
during
the
initial
drug
test.
So
it's
it's
irrelevant
to
that.
The
initial
drug
test
test
level
is
low.
Now,
if
you
investigate
that
who
had
been
an
unknown
reasons
for
that
drugs,
marijuana
stays
in
your
system
for
a
long
period
of
time.
G
He
could
have
smoked
a
cigarette
a
couple
week
before
two
weeks
before
and
it
could
have
been
reduced.
There
could
have
been
any
number
of
explanations
for
that.
He
could
have
eaten
something,
but
he
didn't
direct
them.
The
Police
Department
to
any
eating.
As
far
as
being
able
to
how
do
you
refute
a
positive
drug
test,
as
mr.
Hillier
claims,
you
can't
refute.
It
I
disagree
with
that.
You
refute
it
by
saying
Oh
a
friend
gate
if
he
had
some
CBD
oil
perchance.
G
If
he
had
been
around
some
CBD
oil,
a
friend
gave
me
some
CBD
oil.
Let's
investigate
that.
I
have
if
it's
a
different
drug.
Obviously,
I
have
these
prescriptions
for
morphine
or
what-have-you
other
drugs
that
doesn't
really
work
in
Georgia
with
marijuana
those
types
of
the
offering
I
ate
a
poppy
seed
sandwich
I
had
a
questionable
brownie
at
a
party
last
weekend.
Let's
investigate
none
of
that
was
provided
so
the
basis
for
this
decision
was
the
drug
test
that
the
chief
considered
and
reasonably
considered
he's
allowed
to
consider
hearsay.
G
As
far
as
due
process
concerns
and
the
notice
to
the
hearing
the
city
has
in
place,
for
this
very
reason,
a
multi-layered
level
of
due
process
to
ensure
that
there
is
due
process
allowed.
So,
even
if,
as
mr.
Wilson
has
said,
he
got
notice
of
the
hearing
that
day
he
was
allowed,
he
was
afforded
it.
He
had
an
attorney
at
that
hearing.
He
was
given
a
chance
to
give
an
explanation
at
that
hearing.
G
He
was
also
given
five
days
after
that
hearing
to
provide
any
evidence
he
wanted
to
for
the
chief
to
consider
before
the
termination
decision
was
made
so
that
he
was
given
that
twice
over
before
the
termination
decision
was
made,
and
the
chief
testified
that
he
considered
that
prior
to
the
termination
decision-
and
he
considered
that,
and
then
we
had
the
whole
fair
treatment
process
following
the
termination.
So
due
process
was
served
here
in
you
know
many
layered
ways
your.
B
B
At
this
time,
the
board
will
retire
to
deliberate
and
at
that
time
no
votes
when
we
take
in
while
we
deliberate,
the
vote
will
be
taken
out
in
the
public.
Thank
you
good
afternoon.
The
we
have
deliberated
and
have
come
to
it,
consistent
with
the
boy
at
this
time
or
entertaining
motion
for
the
decision.
Yes,.