Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I will call the City of Joliet Board of Fire and Police Commissioners special meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, June 30, 2026. It is 2 PM. Roll call, please.

Chairman Adamofsky.

Here. Mr. Coleman here commissioner pass here mr. Strosha here and commissioner Stefanski is present We have a quorum first up on the agenda is citizens to be heard on agenda items Anyone like to speak to the board on an agenda item?

Hello, board. I'm Eric Madsen, president of Fire Officers Association, Local 2369. Every time I address this board, I say thank you to you guys. I know it's not an easy job you have, but we certainly appreciate your civic duty while you're up here doing it. And that's no BS. Thank you, guys. We're only here, I think, and I speak for We could have for most of these people. We're here to discuss some of the fire board rules, police and fire board rules, as to how they attain to ascertain merit with military veterans.

We understand there is some discussion on it. Particularly on the fire side, we have a list that's about to expire.

We would ask for your consideration in not establishing new rules while we're in the middle of a game. If we can get through this list, sign off on it, and then maybe have discussion on any changes that there are to be had later, and we'll talk about it then if we could. Any questions for me? Thank you very much for the time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to next agenda item. Um, Julia police department promotion.

Good afternoon commissioners. Uh, I'm deputy chief Sherry Blackburn. I'm going to be filling in for acting chief, uh, Rob Brown right now. He's at a meeting. We reviewed the history of work of Sergeant candidate James Durham and found that throughout his career, he has received numerous awards, including a Silver Life Saving Award. He's a recipient of an Illinois Juvenile Officers Association Distinguished Service Award. He's been nominated and received Officer of the Month. He's received numerous unit merit awards and letters of appreciation from citizens. In addition, he's had no disciplinary record for the past five years. As a result, we find no cause to prevent him from performing his duties if promoted to the rank of sergeant. And on a personal note, Officer Jim Durham has worked for me. I've worked with him. He's an outstanding officer. I think he's only going to be a better supervisor if promoted to the rank of sergeant. Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you, Deputy Chief. Is there a motion to approve the promotion of Master Patrol Officer James Durham to Sergeant James Durham? Motion.

Second.

We have a first and a second. Pull the board, please.

Chairman Adamofsky.

Aye.

Commissioner Coleman? Aye. Commissioner Potts? Aye. Commissioner Strosha? Aye. And Commissioner Stefanski? Aye.

Motion carries. Congratulations, Sergeant Durham. Okay, next up on the agenda for new or old business, not for final action or recommendation, is a discussion regarding promotional preference points.

So just to start off the discussion point, there was, and I know Gina is here from HR to kind of further explain. I'll turn it over to her in a moment. Recently in preparing the next set of promotional lists, as you all know, there's a whole process that goes along with it. There's a whole stack of different preference points that we have to calculate. And the one, as was mentioned in open public comment, relates to the appropriate calculation of veterans' points. So just to be clear, my understanding, and certainly the way that this is set up on the agenda today, is that we're not looking to make any changes. to the current board rules. It's more a matter of how are we supposed to interpret our current board rules, which effectively point to what does the law require. So with that, Gina, do you have anything that you would like to add in terms of background for this?

Yes, I have a prepared statement. So thank you all for being here today. The Human Resources Department respectfully requests the board's formal guidance regarding the criteria that should be used to determine and award veteran preference points in promotional processes. Unfortunately, the Illinois statute on point is not well worded in our opinion. Our staff are new to the process and our HR director has experience from a previous municipality. And according to the information that the Human Resources Department has reviewed and received, the determination and application of military preference points have not historically been calculated or utilized in a consistent manner across promotional processes. And I will apologize. I use veteran and military points interchangeably, but they are the same thing. This inconsistency has resulted in varying interpretations of eligibility, documentation requirements, and point allocation from one promotional cycle to another. To establish clear, uniform standards that will ensure fairness and transparency, our department is working to establish a standardized and clearly documented method for assessing military service and applying preference points. This standardized approach will support uniformity across all future promotional processes and help ensure that all eligible candidates are treated equitably. We would also suggest revising the board's rules at some point in the near future to reflect the determination. HR seeks direction on the following. Eligibility requirements. What qualifying military service should be recognized? The options as we see them are to one, award veterans points for every 365 days of active military service up to the maximum points allowed for active military service only, whether it's achieved on active duty or reservist duty. Or two, award veteran's points only if the veteran has served in both active and reserve or inactive status. Additionally, the HR director contacted several other municipalities, and they calculate military promotional points using the first interpretation or option. Also, for full disclosure, we consulted outside counsel and the Illinois Attorney General's Military and Veterans Rights Bureau for input, and they agree with using option two based on the wording of the applicable statute and case law. The second request is regarding documentation standards. One, should HR rely exclusively on DD-214s, which are referenced in the board rules? Or two, should HR also accept other service verification documentation, such as point credit summaries? which is an official record that tracks the retirement points of service members and leave and earnings statements. And those aren't the only documents that can be used to prove military service. Those are just two of the best examples. I would also like to add that the HR director and myself are both military veterans and are sensitive to the implications of these determinations. Choosing one option over the other can exclude the inclusion of the veteran points for certain employees. As you likely know veteran preference points may only be applied once towards a promotional appointment After an eligible candidate uses military points to secure a promotion Those points cannot be applied again for any subsequent promotional processes per the Illinois Municipal Code Going forward our department intends to issue a formal certification for each applicant participating in the promotional process This certification will verify the applicant's submitted documentation, including any preference point eligibility, and will serve as a standardized record of the applicant's status at the time of review. A copy of each certification will be filed in the applicant's personnel file to ensure consistent, auditable, and readily accessible documentation for future reference. Thank you.

Thank you.

So realistically today, the question is just what are we supposed to do? I mean, quite literally. You are, as we've discussed before, kind of beholden to a couple of different things. Obviously, the state law, your own rules, any collective bargaining agreements that may speak to what's going on here. And again, specifically with reference to veterans' points. Now, there's four CBAs that are potentially at issue here. We have two for police, two for fire. In my view of all four of those collective bargaining agreements, nothing specifically specifies veterans' points. There are references to the promotional process in each one of the collective bargaining agreements. And generally speaking, in my opinion, they all effectively say that we are supposed to follow the rules unless there's something specific in the collective bargaining agreement that says otherwise. As I said, there's nothing specific to veterans' points in any of the CBAs. So really it comes down to what do our own rules require. And our rules effectively say, which is super helpful for all involved, preference points candidates who are otherwise qualified and have properly requested credit for prior military service shall be granted up to three and one half or 3.5 veterans preference points as set forth in 65 ILCS 5-10-2.1-11 within 10 business days after the date of the written test or such claims shall be deemed waived. Such veterans' preference points shall only be used once for one promotional rank, e.g. it shall not be utilized more than one time for multiple promotional ranks. So all it effectively says is that we follow the law. I think the issue that was identified is that we have not been following, in theory, the law correctly. As you heard from Gina, from the city and HR's perspective, there are a couple of different viewpoints in how to interpret the language. My personal interpretation is what was referenced as option two, and this is borne out also by existing case law. Now, albeit this case law is from the 80s, but it's still in good standing. But effectively, what the question is and what the back and forth analysis has been is whether it's and or or as far as the requirements for receiving the veteran's preference points. So the statute is not a be it. I know this is going to come as a huge surprise to most involved. The Illinois general legislature did not do the most clear and concise job of drafting this particular statutory language. So it is a little bit confusing. But the case law, in my interpretation as well as speaking with multiple other individuals in my firm, kind of confirmed what my original opinion was, which is that the first is that you have to be a member of the classified service of fire and police. That's a no-brainer. They're obviously all going to meet that requirement. The individual must have engaged in military and naval service in the United States at any time for a period of at least one year. That can sometimes come into question of whether or not they were in active service or not, but that's not really the issue that's before us today. And then the last two points, which are really a real issue, is that the individual must have been honorably discharged from that service. And the individual must be currently on inactive or reserve duty in such military or naval service. And that's the and between those last two points that's critical. So there is a distinction between initial hire and promotional. So with initial hire, it is this or scenario of that honorably discharged or serving an inactive status. Whereas for promotional purposes, they have to, under the existing case law, meet both requirements. So they have to be both honorably discharged and currently in inactive or reserve duty in order to qualify for the veteran's points under the way the statute is written. Now, the other thing I would say is that's, in my opinion, what the current case law and the statute legally requires us to do. I will say, though, as there were a couple of comments about potentially changing the rules, in theory, because this is a home rule community as well as collective bargaining agreements also apply, the parties, the city and the unions could bargain something else, which we would be obligated to follow in terms of how these points are calculated and applied. And in theory, the board could amend its rules, which would have different legal implications, which would also potentially have collective bargaining implications as well. So I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has. But just to be summarized and be quite straightforward with what I'm articulating, in my opinion, we're obligated under our current rules and the guidelines that we're supposed to follow to follow the statute. And in my opinion, reading the statute and the existing case law, the existing case law requires both. that the person be honorably discharged and currently in inactive or reserved duty. So my advice to the board would be that to give the direction to human resources when calculating those points that they follow that guideline of what the statute requires when calculating those points. Does anybody have any questions or if there's anything I can further add?

I have a question. You said inconsistent. Are you talking for the city of Joliet or several different cities? Because Joliet has been pretty consistent, I think, for the last 35, 40 years. I mean, you've got the unions here. We've been consistently getting the points that they get for having service, correct? So there's never been a change. There's how many promotion lists you've been on for 30-something years. It's been consistent. So you said it was inconsistent. Are you talking about other cities or our city?

Well, both. As far as other municipalities, there are other municipalities that aren't following what Kelly just described. So as far as inconsistent, there's that. And then internally, our understanding is that the determination whether one particular veteran qualified for the points or not, that was the inconsistent part.

Well, as I happened to be on for 31 years, we were very consistent. Everyone who took that test knew exactly they could only use them points once, and they planned out when they used them. But if we are going to discuss us maybe changing them and doing that, I think it should be done immediately. Next list, because these guys all prepared with the way we had it. So every guy, it's not a two-week cycle. These guys study for six months. So they're going to save that points. Either they're going to go from lieutenant to captain or captain to BC. They plan that out. They make sure with seniority and all that stuff. It's just something that we could discuss. I'm not saying who's right or who's wrong. But these lists, I think, should be certified. the rules that they had before they took out the application, and then what you guys found, that's something we could discuss with us, with the unions and all that stuff. But I recommend that we certify these lists with our home rule that we've always had, just to make it fair to the people that studied for these lists.

And just to make sure that we're clear for everybody, that would be option one that you're saying in terms of the requirements.

Yes, for this list. I'm not saying either or, but I'm just saying for this list, that's what we're expecting. So I don't think we should pull the rug underneath them. This is how they were studying. This is how they planned out this list. My own personal opinion.

I also agree, anything that's started should be finished the way it started. So in regards to this list, there's no question in my mind we leave it as is. I also interpret that statute a little differently than you read. I see it divided, I see having served divided by a period or a comma, and then it brings in another subsection of those that are serving right now. So they get that benefit too. So I think it includes the now serving, now reservists, as well as the ones who have served.

Well, the case law confirms, and this is also something that was confirmed by the Attorney General's office, that the way the points are supposed to be, again, this is just what the statute requires. Ultimately, what the board decides to do is ultimately the board's decision. The statute requires it to be both served and currently in a reserve or inactive status. It doesn't say that. Yes, it does.

I'm reading the Illinois statute.

Yeah, the individual must be a member of the classified service of the fire or police department of a municipality coming under Division 2.1, semicolon, the individual must have been engaged in the military or naval service of the United States at any time for a period of at least one year, semicolon, the individual must have been honorably discharged from that service, semicolon, and the individual. I don't have an and. I'm not sure what you're looking at. I don't know. I printed it up and there wasn't an and. Okay, so all I can tell you is that what my advice is, ultimately what you decide to do, there can't be any clearer from what I'm hearing today of what has been going on and what should have been going on are two different things. The question before the board is, hold on one second, let me finish. is do you want to follow what has been done, or do you want to follow what the statute requires, which was my recommendation. Again, ultimately, it's completely up to the board to determine how you're going to direct HR to calculate those points. I believe there was a hand from the audience that looks like they would like to weigh in.

Well, I think we're getting confused under two laws. I think you're quoting ICERA, right?

No, this is under the... I'm not going to... I'll be honest. There's no need to debate what the statute says. The question here is really about does the... And I've given my opinion. And again, I don't want to cut anybody off. This is more of the... For everyone's time and interest, I don't think we need to have a circular argument in terms of what my reading of the law is, what the attorney general's reading of the law is, and what other individuals' interpretation of the law is. I think the question here is just, what do you want to do? Now, I sense from the responses that your vote is for option one.

I really don't get a vote, but I just want to make clarification on whether we're quoting ICERA or we're quoting...

This is not ICERA. This is the language under the BFPC Municipal Code under Division 2.1.

And we find HR is bringing a lot to the board, right? It's all brand new. I'm sure if Todd Lindsey was here, he's voted on this in the past for the past list. He's Corporation Counsel. He's already done this, vetted it. It's been asked and answered before. Now we see something new coming in. Blindly. There's no part of negotiation, no part of any interpretation. What's going on? There's something new that's presented right in the middle of a test. We have people, and I'm not to buck the law or anything here, there are We had people that have taken the test that had 10 years on who are no longer in the reserve. Started out in the reserve, got called up, went to active duty in the Marine Corps. They were over in the middle of it, in the sand, in the fleas, and everything else. They came back here. They took a test. They've been out of the reserve for how many years? Yet they've had this premonition in their head, I'm going to get those points. And now, out of nowhere, we're saying, no, you don't. Those aren't our rules. We have current rules. We're home rule. If we get through this, let's stamp our list now, and then we can negotiate over this. I think that's the right call.

So, yeah, I think the list that has been created with the previous rules should stand because all these references like... pulling the rug and changing the rules in the middle of the game doesn't make sense. And so I wanted to ask again, and I think Eric made it clear that you did not have to be in the reserves to get the points previously, but the statute and what your opinion is is that they should either be, because I'm confused, inactive or in the reserves. So That's two different things from my knowledge.

Correct. So you can be inactive and in an active status or in the reserves. So one or the other will satisfy that last prompt. And just to be clear, there is, I apologize, I was reading from the court case. There is no specific and that is listed in there. It is the who is now or whoever may hereafter be in an active or reserve duty in such military or naval service comment, not including however persons who are convicted by court. Actually, I should read earlier. Every member of the classified service of the fire and police of any municipality coming under the provisions of this Division 2.1 who is engaged in military or naval service to the United States at any time for a period of one year, so that's where the one year comes in, who is honorably discharged therefrom, who is now or who may hereafter be on inactive or reserve duty in such military or naval service. So the question, we can get into, again, we can continue the debate on whether that's an and or or type of requirement. I think from what I'm hearing from the board that there seems to be, and again, I'm more than happy to continue answering any questions that you have. It also seems that everyone is on the same page in terms of how things have been done versus what my interpretation of what the law requires. Again, at the end of the day, it's up to the board to make the determination or at least to give, in this particular instance, guidance to HR in terms of how you'd like these things to be applied. And that's really the question before you today.

Can I get a little scenario so I can just understand it better? So I was in the Guard for 13 years. I served in the war for 15 months, came home, did like three years, but I've been out for like 10 years, more than that. So if I were to apply to be a firefighter or a police officer, I would not get the points.

So there's different rules that apply to initial application than for promotional services. So let's talk about, let's, promotion. So for promotion, you would have to have, you would meet the active, you were in active service for more than one year. The question is, are you currently in an active or reserved duty? If the answer is no, then you would not be entitled.

That's ridiculous.

Well, and again, the board can make whatever decision it ultimately wants. All I can tell you is, and many times, unfortunately, what the lawyer tells you the law should say is not necessarily what you want the law to say. Now, you are in the catbird seat in determining how you want to apply your own rules. That's entirely up to you. you will not get me to say otherwise what the law specifically requires. I do acknowledge, however, that there is and has been a vocal interest in doing something other than that, which is entirely within your purview to do so.

I'm not sure who thought that was a good idea, but anyone who served this nation, especially if they served in a war, and spend time overseas deserves every veteran point they can receive.

So I don't know how this change came about because the state law came out. So realistically, there was no change. The law has been in existence in this current format for longer than I've been alive, which is not for an insignificant period of time. The issue is, as many things happen, is that people weren't following the law correctly, which is not, in my experience working with a number of different BFPCs, and given the kind of Byzantine way the law is written, it's not uncommon for these things to be misinterpreted. And then, like most things happen, and this is I'm sure not news to anybody in this room, We just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over again, not thinking anything of it because what ain't broke, why fix it until sometimes what happens is you get a change in leadership, you get change in personnel that then go back and look, why are we doing it this way and discover that we may not necessarily be doing things correctly. I can't speak to what inconsistencies there may or may not have been from one person to the other. What I can tell you from what my understanding is, is that it appears that it has been for generally speaking that it's been applied in the or or the first scenario rather than the and is what it appears that it has been again we can continue the debate about whether that should have been the case or what you guys should do going forward Again, I will tell you until the cows come home what my analysis of the law is. But at the end of the day, you get to decide how you want to apply your rules and whether or not you want to continue to do things as they have been done for now or if you want to apply the law as currently drafted.

I have some questions. Gina. So just to be clear, the way that the city of Joliet currently operates, whether it's for hire or promotion, veteran points are distributed exactly the same way. True or false?

Currently? Yes. The same way. Yes.

Okay. Do all four, whether they be blue shirt, white shirt, same for fire, is it consistent across the board for hiring and promotion in terms of how these points are distributed?

Well, no, but that's because they're different in the board rules.

Okay. But as far as this goes, right, like there's no really inconsistent approach In what we're doing internally, it's really that we're inconsistent with state law.

I can only speak to our current staff in the HR office. We're all new that are involved with the board, Pauline, myself, the HR director. As far as our time working with you and with these matters, yes.

As a home rural community, we oftentimes don't follow a lot of state statutes. I feel like this is an instance where that's a good thing. And to Natalie's point, I think that we should be fully inclusive of anyone and everyone who's ever served. And if we're already doing that, I don't see a need to change what's happening unless there's some kind of inconsistent distribution. If there's a fix for inconsistent distribution, I'm all ears. But I don't know why we would mess with something that has worked, continues to work, and is fairly and equitably applied to anyone and everyone who's ever served.

If I may, as the rules state, they refer back to the statute and as an attorney working in the HR office, I'm trying to follow the rules in the law. And that's why I reached out to outside counsel and had staff reach out to the Illinois Attorney General's office. That's my obligation is to do the right thing under the law, under the rules. Now, I will say, to your point about fairness and giving, providing another example of a veteran that could be excluded, and that's one where, you know, someone served on active duty, so Board Member Coleman gave the example of being in reserves, right? Okay, so if you have an active service member who is honorably discharged but receive a medical discharge, They most often, I don't know of any exceptions, do not have to serve in active service or any reservist time after they get out. Veterans under a standard contract serve in active service after their active service is over. So they would meet those two prongs, right? But a veteran who serves for 15 years of active service and receives a medical discharge would not qualify under the state statute and case law interpretation because they wouldn't have to do that in active service. Like I said in our statement, we were very sensitive to this and hope someone takes the statute up.

The reality is we're not being inconsistent, except for with state law. We're a home rule community, so we can disregard state law. Our rules are inconsistent with state statute. Therefore, can we just modify our rules so that they're dismissive of state statute vis-a-vis home rules?

So what I would suggest, given what I'm hearing today, is that in order to be consistent with what you want to apply, you would need to amend your rules. Now, there are certain instances, there are certain bargaining implications that relate to... on changing rules and processes. But given that everybody is of the same mindset that that's how they want this to be applied, it doesn't seem like that's going to be much of an issue that we need to do. So what I would suggest is that going forward, that at some point in the future, which I think was mentioned by a number of different people, that you amend your rules to be consistent with how you want it to be applied so that it is clear going forward. The upside and downside of referencing that we will follow whatever the statute is, that you will then be holding to however that statute could be interpreted, and you've got multiple lawyers interpreting it differently. So if there is specific ways that you would like this to be applied, you're a home rule authority, you can absolutely change it to be that way. And certainly, I would always recommend that so that, as Pauline has unfortunately discovered, sometimes you walk in and you're not really sure how people have done things in the past or how things should be done. So it would be significantly more transparent for all involved going forward if you were to amend your rules to specify that. I don't know if you guys are currently in the process of looking to amend your rules or not, but that would certainly be something that I would add to the to-do list if you guys were going to do that.

Would amending the rules fix the problem?

Certainly amending the rules could fix the problem, yeah. As long as the unions aren't going to demand to bargain over making things consistent with how you guys have been applying them, there shouldn't be any legal issue with doing that. Now, I would say you cannot do that today. No.

Anyone else have questions?

I have two more questions. When you say they've been in for a year, that's either active or reserve? They've served a year. They have to be in active U.S. military service for one year. Okay. And then, and I'm not knocking it because I taught and I was still in the Guard. I was a teacher. So I could have been called. I was called up for deployment. Do we pay, do we still pay the salary of firefighters and police officers if they're currently in the Guard or Reserve and they get deployed?

So if there is, under Illinois law, there is something called, which was referenced earlier, ISERA, does require a certain pay depending on the type of deployment. So usually for involuntary deployment, there's full pay, differential pay, I can't remember which one off the top of my head. But they are paid and receive certain benefits while they are deployed.

Okay.

Other questions? No, I mean, we could make a motion that we keep it as is and then discuss.

So it's not a motion. What we just need today is, and I'll just say it this way, and you guys can correct me if I'm inaccurate, is that the direction to the Human Resources Department is is to calculate the veteran's preference points consistent with option one, which was the not requiring and just requiring or. I know there was another question in terms of the level of documentation required. That's really a U-call in terms of, it was a recommendation in terms of what documentation to require.

So I think it's in the appendix where it's about the, um, initial points. I believe that's the only location where it talks about documentation. It says evidenced by DD 214. And that is not always the best document that can prove one service.

And I saw the same thing in terms of in the only reference I saw, and albeit I did not memorize your rules, but it appeared that that was the only reference was in the initial hire, which is obviously not what we're talking about. So did you have a specific recommendation in terms of what you would suggest being allowed to be submitted to prove?

For purposes of Veterans Point. If the board has no issue with us utilizing other documentation to prove military service, if we can keep it broad, that would be best. If it needs to be specific, the leave and earnings statements and the point credit summaries would be the best two examples in addition to duty 214s.

So there's nothing specifically in your rules that say one way or the other just says they have to apply in writing and that's all that is. So if you would like to accept the, I personally see no issue with accepting the recommendation of human resources is that basically what it would be is that human resources can then decide if whatever written submission is sufficient to demonstrate.

Do we have a problem with what was going on in the past? Did we have somebody falsely? Applying?

It wasn't about falsely. It was not turning in enough information to prove their service.

Okay. And how about the long form DD-14? Does that not do it for you? The long form, not just the photocopy of...

Right. No, actually it doesn't. I think it gets more complicated with reservists and their service. So they have other documentation and accumulating all their DD-214s because they have multiple DD-214s from the periods of time that they were activated. So having a statement that has all of that information on it is more helpful.

And what is that called?

The point credit summaries are for points towards retirement and the leave and earnings statements are they show like how much they were paid and how much they served is my understanding.

I understand it could be multiple DD-214s because I have two. I have three because they give you one when you go to officer school as well. But I think that I don't know. If I'm the only one out here that's saying stick to the DD-214, then I'll be outvoted. But I think if you want the service credit, I mean, if you want the points, then you'll – I don't know why you wouldn't have your DD-214. And you can go online and get it.

You would get off free, right?

Yeah, you can. They have improved the system for getting documents.

Trust me. I think that if I'm understanding Gina's point correctly, I don't think getting the 214 is the issue. I think it's more of that it doesn't contain the necessary information that we're looking for.

It has everything on there. It has the years you served, where you served. And I have all three of mine at home. And I'm not saying that it's easy to get.

And this is not my area of expertise, is understanding military paperwork. So I will defer to others.

Because I used to think it was just one. But you literally get one for officer school or training, active duty, and then the whole time you were in the Guard. So I think people should be able to do their own due diligence and have those documents in their possession. I'm not trying to not give points. I think, like I said in my previous statement, but when we start allowing different documents, there's chances of forgery and some other things that could happen. Because where do we stop? Is it going to be three different documents we accept? I know you named two others, but if it's just those three, I don't want it to be just open is what I'm getting at.

If we get limited to those three, I think that would be very helpful.

Then if you'd like to give the, again, there's no voting because we're not making any formal decisions, but the board is, just with a kind of verbal yes or nod, is giving direction to HR to continue to calculate the points under option one, which was the or scenario. Is that correct? Yes. Then with respect to the documents required, it sounded like you were willing to provide the direction that the three specific documents, which I will not attempt to regurgitate off the top of my head, that Gina mentioned are acceptable forms of proof.

In a minute. Who are we eliminating? Who are we eliminating by adding those two?

Well, I can tell you that we had a recent applicant who Did not prove enough service with the DD 214 that they submitted Okay, he's out you don't get the point I

I'm wondering if we open this up to more documents, do we exclude someone who served our nation and doesn't have that one document? Oh, no, we wouldn't be excluding them.

They don't have to turn in all three. It's just to... right one or the other and and also you know I actually worked in personnel in the military and the deeds of our teens are are filled out by you know 19 year old admin clerks that are not always completely accurate. I don't know if Board Member Coleman has experienced this. Mistakes do happen on the DD-214s and the reservist ones can be quite complicated. There's There's a lot of information on there as far as all the dates and the time. I know in working with Pauline, it is a bit complicated. So if we have those other statements that are more cumulative, that would be... easier for everyone involved, both the employee, the veteran, and the HR staff to say, here's all the active service. They qualify. It's easy. It's all right there. DD-214s, the long versions, as you mentioned, are ideal because they show the type of service. The short DD-214s do not show if they're honorable or not, for instance. So yes, we do want those, but honorable service will be calculated in the retirement credits and the LES statements. So They're inherently built in.

So the type of discharge is on the other two documents you named?

No. That's not my understanding. That's only on the long form of the DD-214. But if you have a dishonorable or other than honorable or bad conduct discharge, that time should not be counted toward retirement time, which would show the act of service. But we can take another look at that if there's concern over that.

There is. A little bit because I don't think we would want someone that was dishonorably discharged. And if we don't have a document that shows that.

Well, I can tell you that I do think that those types of discharges would come up in the background checks of our employees, the initial background checks. Okay.

But if you say you believe, I would like to see where it comes up, like if we know for sure. Because if they turn in their earning statements or the other one and it's not on there, how do we factually know? Like I want a tangible place in the application or wherever that says they served in the military and this was their type of discharge, if we're going to accept those other documents.

Gina, why do those other documents make it easier for you guys?

Let's see. There is more cumulative information on the documents. I also know that we've had candidates who have not been able to supply the DD-214s but had the service. So I can't speak to why they weren't able to supply the DD-214. I don't know if it was just not doing their due diligence or what. I really don't know the circumstances. I do know that sometimes getting a DD-214 can be challenging.

Do we know of anyone for sure who served, couldn't get a DD-214, didn't get preference points?

Yes. However, I do not know if the person still would have qualified and just didn't turn in enough proof.

Can I interject really quick? Sure. Is there a current applicant for promotional points where you're having difficulty with the paperwork, or is this more of a future issue that we're addressing?

I don't know if it's a current or recent. Pauline? It's current, right? Yeah.

This is current. So we do need this for current purposes? OK. Or at least we need the clarification for the current calculation. So what's the board's pleasure?

What is the problem with this applicant?

You can't get a DD? I have no idea. I'm just asking if this is a... What I was trying to get at is, is this a conversation that we need to resolve now, or is this a conversation that we can loop into amending our rules going forward? It sounds like from what I'm hearing that this is an active issue that they need clarification on now. What the specific issue is, I don't know. I'm loath to go into more specifics on what the current issue is because I think at the end of the day it shouldn't matter. My recommendation is usually to take those things in a vacuum and to say what's your preference to keep things with just the straightforward current existing paperwork that you allow your initial applicants to provide, or do you want to take their recommendation from HR to broaden that to allow for those other documents that were referenced?

I mean, if it worked for this long, I'd say keep it. I'm open to adding, but I don't even know what these documents we're talking about look like. I don't know what they contain. I know what a DD214 is. I know the information on that. So I feel comfortable using that as a document to show service. Again, I'm open to at least exploring other documentation, but I've never seen it. I'd like to see what it looks like and have more conversation around that.

I'm sorry, Gina. Have we accepted other documents in the past?

I think it's hard to tell because of the, I mean, I will say with Pauline and Gina, they're kind of thrown into the deep end of the pool because they're, unfortunately, as many bureaucratic things are, usually the person that you're taking over for doesn't leave detailed notes of exactly how we did this and where stuff is. So I think they're trying to just kind of piece together history as best they can. I think if I'm hearing, it sounds like the consensus from the board, and I don't want to cut off this discussion if you think it's worth continuing, but to continue with the existing 214s and then potentially revisiting, expanding that when you can have more information at a later date.

Yeah, I agree. Like, if you can show that there's somewhere else in the application process the type of discharge if they are submitting something other than a DD-214. I'm for allowing other documents. Sure.

Yeah. So does that give you the clarification? And was there an issue with the actual calculation of points that we needed to discuss? I don't think so. Okay. I'm getting Pauline grimacing at me.

And I understand you're saying we would probably catch them ahead of time during the application process. But it could be a possibility that we don't, if we don't have a place to see that type of discharge. And they submit something else.

OK. We'll look into that and verify.

Give us one second.

I don't know why you can't do it. I mean, I haven't used it in years now. Especially if you just have it. You know, I don't think 40 people have it. You don't want other documents. That's what I'm looking for. Oh. There's no hands there. I don't have hands.

Okay, so there was also a question in terms of calculating how to calculate the preference points. I'm assuming the direction based on the, and Pauline just wanted to make sure because as I mentioned there are no real detailed notes or SOPs in terms of this. My understanding, or at least the direction I'm hearing on everything else is to keep whatever calculation that we've been doing historically consistent going forward until any other changes further are made. Is that accurate? Yes. As long as it's consistent. you want consistency of what we've been doing understood i think that was it as far as all of the outstanding issues um i were there any other questions from me at this point or any other items that we need to discuss with that with that agenda item then i think we are good on that one okay thank you guys so much um next up on the agenda is any public comment

Okay, seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Motion carries.